tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post1708143497907235137..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The meaning of life - part IIStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15932120198479305052008-06-26T21:32:00.000+00:002008-06-26T21:32:00.000+00:00Sa - In your reply to sally you mentioned "the tra...Sa - In your reply to sally you mentioned "the transcendent". What exactly do <I>you</I> mean by this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-41645090074805524642008-06-25T17:25:00.000+00:002008-06-25T17:25:00.000+00:00Sally_bm -Atheists also believe in the lego (/the ...Sally_bm -<BR/><BR/>Atheists also believe in the lego (/the world?), and find it meaningful without adding any extra pieces. You seem to be saying that the world itself is meaningful, as it is, without needing God as any EXTRA addition. <BR/><BR/>Sam: yes, but! See below.<BR/><BR/>Sally_bm: In that sense, we both find meaning in the same thing- the world as it is.<BR/><BR/>Sam: probably not, in that I accept the transcendent. But I see the transcendent as part of 'the world as it is'. The transcendent isn't an extra lego piece. Think of it more like light shining through a window.<BR/><BR/>Sally_bm: Do you see the lego AS God, or does God somehow go beyond the lego? <BR/><BR/>Sam: do the lego pieces we have represent either the sum total of lego pieces or all that is possible with lego? God is what makes the whole assembly meaningful.<BR/><BR/>Sally_bm: Either way, we believe in different lego ships (/worlds), and you seem to be saying that only your lego ship can be meaningful, right?<BR/><BR/>Sam: No. Lots of different lego ships are meaningful. Some might be better ships though.<BR/><BR/>Sally_bm: So why do things have to be made out of God-lego for them to be meaningful? <BR/><BR/>Sam: I'm saying that anything meaningful is by definition made out of lego.<BR/><BR/>Sally_bm: You seem to believe that things have to be made out of God-lego for them to exist at all, but hat's a slightly different argument I think. "Imagining" that "lego" can exist without God, why do you find it hard to see how such lego can have meaning? Why isn't this a problem for God-lego?<BR/><BR/>Sam: I think the word 'God' developed as a way of talking about lego as such. That is, it was when people reflected on the meaning of their experiences that the word God was developed, as a way of hanging it all together. Some of that meaning was, of course, worship, praise, liturgy, personal experience of the divine etc etc.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55816572009242797152008-06-25T17:03:00.000+00:002008-06-25T17:03:00.000+00:00Re "theism" - I suggested one or more Gods but wou...Re "theism" - I suggested one or more Gods but would also allow variable or fluctuating numbers greater than zero. I guess that would over the idea of the Trinity.<BR/><BR/>Can't really make much sense of fractional Gods personally although I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone has tried it. Don't think classical demi-gods really qualify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72693134918284572912008-06-25T13:48:00.000+00:002008-06-25T13:48:00.000+00:00Sam: 'As soon as you start talking about the Trini...Sam: 'As soon as you start talking about the Trinity you've left "theism" behind.'<BR/><BR/>Many people do seem to use "theism" to mean monotheism, in the sense of the Abrahamic faiths; but that "mono" is contrasting with "poly," and the Trinity is not a polytheistic belief. Hinduism is, Catholicism isn't.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37470656949094951632008-06-25T10:36:00.000+00:002008-06-25T10:36:00.000+00:00Sorry, that was sally_bm not jess. Shared computer...Sorry, that was sally_bm not jess. Shared computer...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15778148936909483064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25961560155307948062008-06-25T10:35:00.000+00:002008-06-25T10:35:00.000+00:00Hi SamAtheists also believe in the lego (/the worl...Hi Sam<BR/><BR/>Atheists also believe in the lego (/the world?), and find it meaningful without adding any extra pieces. You seem to be saying that the world itself is meaningful, as it is, without needing God as any EXTRA addition. In that sense, we both find meaning in the same thing- the world as it is.<BR/><BR/>Do you see the lego AS God, or does God somehow go beyond the lego? Either way, we believe in different lego ships (/worlds), and you seem to be saying that only your lego ship can be meaningful, right?<BR/><BR/>So why do things have to be made out of God-lego for them to be meaningful? You seem to believe that things have to be made out of God-lego for them to exist at all, but hat's a slightly different argument I think. "Imagining" that "lego" can exist without God, why do you find it hard to see how such lego can have meaning? Why isn't this a problem for God-lego?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15778148936909483064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32775768630056931852008-06-25T09:13:00.000+00:002008-06-25T09:13:00.000+00:00Sam - when I mentioned theism I sort of expected i...Sam - when I mentioned theism I sort of expected it to include all varieties of beliefs in one or more Gods. If have used the term loosely or incorrectly I do apologize. Is there a more precise category which better describes your position? (Always accepting of course that there an sometimes be a spectrum of such things.) <BR/><BR/>As far as Stephens comment about via negativa - I rather took that to be bait - which you declined to swallow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36102692883128976392008-06-24T18:24:00.000+00:002008-06-24T18:24:00.000+00:00Actually my recollection is that Stephen asked me ...Actually my recollection is that Stephen asked me 'not to go all via negativa on him' - which is problematic as that is basically the Christian tradition!<BR/><BR/>And yes, I am a 'professional' Christian. I don't equate that with being a theist though. What is the theist account of Jesus? As soon as you start talking about the Trinity you've left "theism" behind.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-81830455345823966032008-06-24T10:19:00.000+00:002008-06-24T10:19:00.000+00:00Sam said "A further thought - the word 'God' evol...Sam said <I>"A further thought - the word 'God' evolved from precursors. As if people discovered the bits of lego and in the end they had a particular word for what they all held in common."</I><BR/><BR/>Now hasn't Sam just admitted that the word "God" is being used for different things at different times?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-68010255286803019542008-06-24T10:05:00.000+00:002008-06-24T10:05:00.000+00:00Sam - re 'myth'. I think James was quoting an ear...Sam - re 'myth'. I think James was quoting an earlier comment of mine here.<BR/><BR/>I think what I was getting at was that "God" is fictional character. The stories he appears in are culturally significant and may have value in the same way as works of literature to inspire or instruct. Not unlike many of the thought experiments of philosophers. Nonetheless he is not real in the accepted sense of the word. Like Father Christmas, the Good Samaritan, Ebeneezer Scrooge, Brer Rabbit or Biggles. <BR/><BR/>When does something which is untrue decay into a lie? It's surely down to the motivation of the person proclaiming it. I guess what I am arguing for is for theists to embrace the myth if they wish but avoid the lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14147854114657724892008-06-24T09:29:00.000+00:002008-06-24T09:29:00.000+00:00Sam - Are these assumptions unreasonable then?(c) ...Sam - <BR/><BR/>Are these assumptions unreasonable then?<BR/><BR/>(c) Have I missed something? I always thought that you were a practicing, indeed a professional, Christian. <BR/><BR/>(b) I also got a strong impression that you were a mono-theist or a pan-theist.<BR/><BR/>(a) As for the attributes of God, theists often (possibly mostly) argue as if these attributes have the usual properties and meanings associated with them so I think this is a natural assumption. I also seem to remember Stephen offering you the option of "negative theology" and you ignored or rejected it, implying that you think we an say things about God.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So would you say that your personal take on God is a non-theist position, then, possibly in the Cupitt style?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76627761542226585732008-06-24T07:52:00.000+00:002008-06-24T07:52:00.000+00:00anonymous - one of the consistent difficulties in ...anonymous - one of the consistent difficulties in this forum is that it's assumed a) that the God of theism has a set number of philosophically delimitable attributes; b) that this God of theism is the same as the Christian God; and c) that I am a theist in that sense. <BR/><BR/>Papilio - if the ship gets built in such a way that it functions then I'm not about to say that it is missing something. God is not a missing piece! God is the capacity for there to be any sort of building activity at all.<BR/><BR/>James - it all depends on what you mean by 'myth'. If you mean it in the anthropological (ie non-pejorative) sense I'd be happy to agree.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65106824820443836752008-06-24T07:44:00.000+00:002008-06-24T07:44:00.000+00:00Maya - God is not separate from the Lego so there'...Maya - God is not separate from the Lego so there's no question of it being given meaning from outside. That was the point I was trying to make.<BR/><BR/>A further thought - the word 'God' evolved from precursors. As if people discovered the bits of lego and in the end they had a particular word for what they all held in common.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35976102060529508982008-06-23T22:16:00.000+00:002008-06-23T22:16:00.000+00:00Sorry Sam, that sounds like a really bad "thought ...Sorry Sam, that sounds like a really bad "thought for the day".<BR/><BR/>If god is the Lego, how does he give meaning to your child's model - the fact that he chooses to make a spaceship and not a house, or a bridge or a train? <BR/><BR/>What if he chooses to make something with Knex or stickle-bricks instead, is that god too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24287603329177847502008-06-23T19:20:00.000+00:002008-06-23T19:20:00.000+00:00If theists would simply acknowledge that God is a ...<I>If theists would simply acknowledge that God is a myth we would probably progress better.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd be rather satisfied if theists simply admitted that this was a reasonable possibility and acted with the concomitant slice of humility such an honest realization would entail.<BR/><BR/><I>I would argue that God is Lego as such.</I><BR/><BR/>Sam would make an excellent Buddhist.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23146111413755108822008-06-23T18:53:00.000+00:002008-06-23T18:53:00.000+00:00Sam - I had always thought that the "God of the ga...Sam - I had always thought that the "God of the gaps" was a description of the way in which the only place left for God to "hide" in the natural world was where physical explanations did not quite join up as it were. <BR/><BR/>The idea of God as a universal substrate seems just another way of using the word "God" to mean something different when you want it to. You still have the problem of getting from a universal substrate hypothesis to all the other (often mutually conflicting) attributes claimed for God at various times. "God as Lego" looks like being problematic in itself. Suppose we just take every other block and put them in separate boxes - voila - polytheism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88996972258806986352008-06-23T16:23:00.000+00:002008-06-23T16:23:00.000+00:00Yes but Sam: how do you explain to a non-theist th...Yes but Sam: how do you explain to a non-theist that their lego ship is 'missing something'? I'm quite happy with a 'bottom up' view of the universe, based on bricks being assembled into larger wholes. The theist, so far as I can see, has a 'top down' approach, with the first overarching given being 'God'.<BR/><BR/>Suppose the prescription for the ship comes from an ancient book - we already know what it looks like before we have any of the pieces. Now the pieces start arriving in dribs and drabs. It's hard to see how they fit together - but painstaking work enables a ship to begin to take shape. But it doesn't fit the Prescription. Now, what to do? There are a variety of responses. Maybe the Prescription was wrong - nasty consequences to believers, because the Prescription came from God. Maybe if we wilfully hide bits of lego and paper over obvious gaps we can force the bricks to fit the Prescription. Or, finally, we can go to a halfway house: assemble the bricks as they naturally go, but explain that the Prescription was never meant to be taken literally.<BR/><BR/>An analogy too far?Jithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591821557158009912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58626659253799746572008-06-23T12:32:00.000+00:002008-06-23T12:32:00.000+00:00OK, an analogy which may or may not be helpful.My ...OK, an analogy which may or may not be helpful.<BR/><BR/>My kids like to play with lego. Imagine they are making an item - eg a spaceship - and there is a piece missing, and the ship doesn't function properly without it.<BR/><BR/>The 'god of the gaps' argument says that God is the missing piece. Which leads to all sorts of problems for theology when the missing piece is discovered down the back of the sofa.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that God is Lego as such. That is, all the pieces are part of God. God is not so much a missing piece so much as the precondition for being able to build things at all.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the individual lego pieces are different aspects of life that are meaningful.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82244001005533794252008-06-23T01:33:00.000+00:002008-06-23T01:33:00.000+00:00If god were real, and we'll say he is. Then what,...If god were real, and we'll say he is. Then what, how does god really dictate the meaning of life? Let us say there is a god (for the record I beleive there is), then what? Is the meaning of life to serve him? Is the meaning of life to find him? Is the meaning of life a test? <BR/><BR/> If it's to serve him... how and why. Does god need us to make him feel powerful, I tend to think not. And How. As people we must work and procreate, to procreate we have to build meaningful relationships. So where do we work. With whom do we marry? What about recreation. Should we spend our free time in worship? Is that the meaning. If so, why are we given gifts and talents? If my talent is singing. Should I sing "for the lord?" In that case, if I enjoy singing, or I persue fame, am I really worshiping god with my gift? I would be doing it for selfish reasons. If I lived my life exactly as I should... what of all the free time between?<BR/><BR/> If the meaning is a test. If we are here to be tempted and tested to see if we are elite enough to make it into heaven. Then are we worshiping for God's sake or to get into heaven. And wouldn't it be more benifitial to me to die early? Then my test would have less questions? And if it is a test, what would be the point of family, sports, recreation, the arts? Every culture participates likes or does these things so one would be lead to the assumption that these things are important. There are only few things that everyone on earth does. These things are surely important to this end meaning. But if they are, how do they fit into the test? <BR/> <BR/> If the point of life were to have kids, or pass on knowlege and wisdom. To what end? Are we here to pass on knowlege. What would be the point... To pass on knowlege in an infinate cycle... <BR/><BR/> Religion is only one portion to the meaning of life. Your argument will have to focus on other things.Joshua Skinnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02658398832169853012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23960247605362670762008-06-22T09:20:00.000+00:002008-06-22T09:20:00.000+00:00Stephen - Is the tactic you describe significantly...Stephen - Is the tactic you describe significantly different from that used by adherents of other "-isms"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-553328174970338452008-06-21T09:58:00.000+00:002008-06-21T09:58:00.000+00:00Hi SamOften, not always. But a fairly typical reli...Hi Sam<BR/><BR/>Often, not always. But a fairly typical religious move, I think....<BR/><BR/>Used to be called "God of the gaps".Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9558570440173058632008-06-21T08:38:00.000+00:002008-06-21T08:38:00.000+00:00"Go forth and multiply."There's a purpose, but mos..."Go forth and multiply."<BR/>There's a purpose, but most of us would want a little bit more to our purpose than that.<BR/><BR/>As I understand it, and I'm no biblical scholar, but God gave us free will to create our own purposes?<BR/>I'm thinking the parable of the talents here. Maybe God's going to be annoyed with the Christians that took his gift and buried it under religious dogma? <BR/><BR/>Not that His going to be best pleased with you either Stephen... :PScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379585726867301887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73225634105116528972008-06-21T06:11:00.000+00:002008-06-21T06:11:00.000+00:00Stephen - you say: "...the religious...often exhib...Stephen - you say: "...the religious...often exhibit a pattern of thought ... First, they spot a philosophical puzzle ....They then say, “God is what solves that puzzle”"<BR/><BR/>Before I respond can I clarify how far you want to push that thesis? That is, are you simply taking issue with what "some religious" people do? Or are you saying that this is the nature of religious belief <I>tout court</I>? (ie that religious belief is originated by a failure to solve philosophical puzzles)Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40308379605361899182008-06-21T01:32:00.000+00:002008-06-21T01:32:00.000+00:00kyle s said... "God is the only being who can give...kyle s said... <BR/>"God is the only being who can give something intrinsic purpose..." - How do you know this? What does it even mean, for one entity to give another 'purpose'?<BR/><BR/><I>Purpose</I> appears to take on shades of meaning from active to passive, from the result of intent to the result of causation - and theists are adept changing the meaning to suit their own <I>purpose</I>. Why must we have a purpose? And <I>meaning</I>? Why must there be a <I>meaning</I> to life? Aren't we just simply <I>here</I>?<BR/><BR/>Purpose and meaning implies intent somewhere along the line, whether that be in some <I>ultimate</I> creator or not. This is simply the imposition of an anthropomorphic model onto life the universe and everything. For a start, just because we <I>feel</I> there can be purpose and meaning in what <I>we</I> do, there's no justification for supposing it applies outside the scope of human understanding. And if free will is the sham it appears to be to some, then the whole model of purpose and intent and meaning amount to nothing, in the context of this discussion.<BR/><BR/>To say a person's action has <I>purpose</I>, or to say they <I>intended</I> to perform it, or to attribute <I>meaning</I> to it, may be meaningful (in the descriptive sense) within the context of human action simply because it's a model we have evolved to comprehend. It's a good model that's worked to a reasonable degree throughout know human history, but it's not a model you would seriously apply to lesser animals, other lower life forms, or inanimate objects - though we often instinctively do (e.g. as Bazil Fawlty does, and as a result gives his car the damn good thrashing it deserves). So why should we suppose it applies to anything outside our own context, or that it's even <I>real</I> within ours?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40561526585265017782008-06-20T21:57:00.000+00:002008-06-20T21:57:00.000+00:00A Christian might argue, of course, that I'm assum...A Christian might argue, of course, that I'm assuming too much by assuming we evolved naturally...Jithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591821557158009912noreply@blogger.com