Saturday, September 10, 2005
Big Cities
Well, I had my graduation this friday...yes, I know what some of you are thinking. You are saying, "Christopher, my good friend...has all the boiled food gone to your head and made you senile and forget that you graduated last september?!" Yes, although I graduated last september, we didn't go through the ceremony till this past friday...the 9th...of SEPTEMBER!!...hmmm...
Anywho, it was cool. Brian Dennehy was a special guest speaker and he was cool. All in all it was a cool day. Did I use cool enough?
Ok, so enough about that. I have another post on the meaning of life that came to me as I was walking down the street in downtown London.
As I was walking I began to really look at all the people. Thousands upon thousands of people traverse those streets daily and each has a life that is rich in its history, if nothing else. And as I walked I began to think a few things. 1)Our individuality, if you discount the existence of a conscious deity, is largely meaningless. There are so many individuals with so many thoughts and ideas that anything you think or do is most likely thought or done by others and you are not special. Indeed, anything you can do is most likely meaningless and moot which leads to point number two. 2) Even if you don't believe in a deity but still believe life can be meaningful by how you use it, you are really deluding yourself. I was reading the Once and Future King by T.H. White and was thinking about that novel and other "great" works of literature, about philosophers, kings, and fame. On that tangent, I thought that for every Dostoyevsky you have, there are thousands if not millions of writers who also could have been great, but have faded into obscurity. Philosophers have been with us forever, yet very few of them stand the test of time; indeed, most don't even withstand their own lifetime. Even those who wield enormous power in their day, whether they be rulers or well-known by the populace, fade away and usually make very little difference in the river of life as we know it. Only a tiny percent of a tiny percent of a tiny percent do something with their life that changes this world at all. Much as anyone tries, the greatest chance is that your life, whether good or bad, will be completely meaningless and your passing will affect the world virtually not at all. Indeed, even people who commit horrific deeds are forgotten unless they arise to the Hitler level (who will probably fade out of history eventually too)
Basically I guess this post is a challenge to those who don't believe that we were made for a purpose and are known individually. If that's true and if, regardless of how hard we try, we will probably affect things less than a pebble in a fast flowing river, what is the point of doing good or striving for perfection? Is the possibility, remote though it may be, of leaving some sort of legacy enough to make one try? Or is there another answer?
It rained a lot this week and my thoughts have turned darker...almost as dark as Zhubin's black heart...
Anywho, it was cool. Brian Dennehy was a special guest speaker and he was cool. All in all it was a cool day. Did I use cool enough?
Ok, so enough about that. I have another post on the meaning of life that came to me as I was walking down the street in downtown London.
As I was walking I began to really look at all the people. Thousands upon thousands of people traverse those streets daily and each has a life that is rich in its history, if nothing else. And as I walked I began to think a few things. 1)Our individuality, if you discount the existence of a conscious deity, is largely meaningless. There are so many individuals with so many thoughts and ideas that anything you think or do is most likely thought or done by others and you are not special. Indeed, anything you can do is most likely meaningless and moot which leads to point number two. 2) Even if you don't believe in a deity but still believe life can be meaningful by how you use it, you are really deluding yourself. I was reading the Once and Future King by T.H. White and was thinking about that novel and other "great" works of literature, about philosophers, kings, and fame. On that tangent, I thought that for every Dostoyevsky you have, there are thousands if not millions of writers who also could have been great, but have faded into obscurity. Philosophers have been with us forever, yet very few of them stand the test of time; indeed, most don't even withstand their own lifetime. Even those who wield enormous power in their day, whether they be rulers or well-known by the populace, fade away and usually make very little difference in the river of life as we know it. Only a tiny percent of a tiny percent of a tiny percent do something with their life that changes this world at all. Much as anyone tries, the greatest chance is that your life, whether good or bad, will be completely meaningless and your passing will affect the world virtually not at all. Indeed, even people who commit horrific deeds are forgotten unless they arise to the Hitler level (who will probably fade out of history eventually too)
Basically I guess this post is a challenge to those who don't believe that we were made for a purpose and are known individually. If that's true and if, regardless of how hard we try, we will probably affect things less than a pebble in a fast flowing river, what is the point of doing good or striving for perfection? Is the possibility, remote though it may be, of leaving some sort of legacy enough to make one try? Or is there another answer?
It rained a lot this week and my thoughts have turned darker...almost as dark as Zhubin's black heart...
# posted by Christopher @ 10:15 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
The ending paragraph of The Once and Future King is the best ending to any book you'll ever read ever in your entire life ever. Now, on to your stupid argument:
Wow, you sure do set a high standard for having a meaningful life, don't you? The basketball-sized hole in your reasoning is that you apparently assume that the only way one's life can be meaningful is if one permanently changes the entire world, or at least becomes forever well-known.
This is obviously Christian-influenced thinking. You think our lives acquire their meaning because our actions will determine our immortality, so you assume that the non-religious also have a framework that links meaning to immortality, and if you can disprove that framework, you've robbed the athiest's sense of purpose.
But that framework does not exist for the atheist. Immortality is not the purpose of one's life, nor is having an eternal effect on the course of human history.
What is the purpose, then? Well, that's the beauty of liberating yourself from the suffocating confines of religion - you can determine it for yourself. You don't have to measure your life against the detailed and arcane benchmarks of rulemakers dead for thousands of years. You can take what you like and leave what you don't.
Wow, you sure do set a high standard for having a meaningful life, don't you? The basketball-sized hole in your reasoning is that you apparently assume that the only way one's life can be meaningful is if one permanently changes the entire world, or at least becomes forever well-known.
This is obviously Christian-influenced thinking. You think our lives acquire their meaning because our actions will determine our immortality, so you assume that the non-religious also have a framework that links meaning to immortality, and if you can disprove that framework, you've robbed the athiest's sense of purpose.
But that framework does not exist for the atheist. Immortality is not the purpose of one's life, nor is having an eternal effect on the course of human history.
What is the purpose, then? Well, that's the beauty of liberating yourself from the suffocating confines of religion - you can determine it for yourself. You don't have to measure your life against the detailed and arcane benchmarks of rulemakers dead for thousands of years. You can take what you like and leave what you don't.
While I can't discount the black, black, oh so black blackness of Zhubin's heart, I'm with him concerning the flaw in your lofty definition of "meaning."
There's a particular Zen meditation summed up nicely in one of Tolstoy's short stories called "The Three Questions," wherein a ruler wishes to learn the answers to what he deems the three ultimate questions: 1)Who is the most important one? 2) When is the right time to do things? and 3) What is the right thing to do?
The answers he finds are, respectively, 1) The one you are with; 2) Now; and 3) Good for the one standing next to you.
Now then, I agree that our purpose, in truth, is to glorify our Creator in all things, but you can't say that just because another person doesn't believe that, their life is devoid of all meaning. To make a difference now, to brighten someone's day, to use the limited time you have on the planet to touch another human being--is this not purpose? Is that not good enough for you?
I would also add that where you find the thought of all the billions of lives lived through human history--chock full of individuality, now all but lost to memory--bleak, I find in it a certain beauty. We are each given only a season in this mortal coil, and to disdain the humble for want of the earth-shattering is nothing less than irresponsible. Remember, dear Christopher, that in the beginning man was not put into the world to change it, but to enjoy it.
There's a particular Zen meditation summed up nicely in one of Tolstoy's short stories called "The Three Questions," wherein a ruler wishes to learn the answers to what he deems the three ultimate questions: 1)Who is the most important one? 2) When is the right time to do things? and 3) What is the right thing to do?
The answers he finds are, respectively, 1) The one you are with; 2) Now; and 3) Good for the one standing next to you.
Now then, I agree that our purpose, in truth, is to glorify our Creator in all things, but you can't say that just because another person doesn't believe that, their life is devoid of all meaning. To make a difference now, to brighten someone's day, to use the limited time you have on the planet to touch another human being--is this not purpose? Is that not good enough for you?
I would also add that where you find the thought of all the billions of lives lived through human history--chock full of individuality, now all but lost to memory--bleak, I find in it a certain beauty. We are each given only a season in this mortal coil, and to disdain the humble for want of the earth-shattering is nothing less than irresponsible. Remember, dear Christopher, that in the beginning man was not put into the world to change it, but to enjoy it.
"You can take what you like and leave what you don't" Now Zhubin, isn't that the mindset of selfishness and, if truth be told, the greatest villains in history? Are you saying they too found meaning and it is as valid and fulfilling as spending one's life helping orphans? If you make your own meaning without it having any sort of immutable base, then good and bad are gone and there is only what one wants. Is that what you're saying...that you want to kill Jews...huh?!
By the way, September 9th...hmmm...
By the way, September 9th...hmmm...
all is forgiven now--what with you missing my birthday and all.
because i missed yours. :(
hope you had a great day!
because i missed yours. :(
hope you had a great day!
# posted by 
: 4:26 PM
: 4:26 PM
Psh. Mindset of selfishness? Mindset of maturity is more like it. Burn!
I agree that good and bad, in the "absolute" sense, do not exist. But that just means that one has to be determine one's own sense of good and bad. Now, maybe you're too weak to create your own moral code without having it collapse into nothing but "wants," but it's entirely possible for someone with a strong moral core to determine what is wrong and what is right.
For example, without your God's laws, you apparently are unable to say with moral clarity that mass murder is wrong. But I am willing, without the crutch of any book, to declare firmly that murdering people is wrong, and much worse than helping orphans.
Similarly, I am able to derive a purpose for my life that does not bind me to a moral code with which I disagree. You, unfortunately, have no such freedom, and when confronted with commands that have long outlasted their purpose you must either embarrassingly justify them ("No, you see, God thinks wives are just as equal as their husbands, but in a different way!"), or pretend that they don't exist or were misinterpreted ("No, the Bible doesn't really mean slavery is okay...").
I agree that good and bad, in the "absolute" sense, do not exist. But that just means that one has to be determine one's own sense of good and bad. Now, maybe you're too weak to create your own moral code without having it collapse into nothing but "wants," but it's entirely possible for someone with a strong moral core to determine what is wrong and what is right.
For example, without your God's laws, you apparently are unable to say with moral clarity that mass murder is wrong. But I am willing, without the crutch of any book, to declare firmly that murdering people is wrong, and much worse than helping orphans.
Similarly, I am able to derive a purpose for my life that does not bind me to a moral code with which I disagree. You, unfortunately, have no such freedom, and when confronted with commands that have long outlasted their purpose you must either embarrassingly justify them ("No, you see, God thinks wives are just as equal as their husbands, but in a different way!"), or pretend that they don't exist or were misinterpreted ("No, the Bible doesn't really mean slavery is okay...").
The problem in your entire reasoning is your assertion that you can decide a moral core from an individual basis. You said there was no absolute good and evil; therefore your creation of your moral code is simply an attempt to decide what is "right" or "fair" or "equitable"...all of which, without an absolute, is completely open to an individual's persuasion.
You say you can make a strong moral code without divine intervention, but what is to say that your ideas of right and wrong are any better than those of Hitler's. He believed what he was doing was right. Or are you saying that the beliefs of the masses or of the majority is a way to determine overarching good and evil...well slavery was probably a good moral code.
Your main flaw is to believe that you can have a moral code without absolutes and these absolutes obviously cannot come from man as is demonstrated throughout our history.
Where else could they come from...hmmm...
And as for your Biblical questions, the answers to your cheap shots are painfully simple to one who can use a bit of historical reasoning, but since it is you, I will explain.
As far as the role of wife, many of the words that are used, such as "submission" have a decidedly richer and equitable context when applied in the Greek and Aramaic. The Christian marriage, properly applied, calls for a joint submission to God and to each other...the other part is only to give a pecking order in the unlikely event that a decision has to be made. If you look at the verses, God actually talks to the men quite a bit more about how they should treat their wifes than he does to the women about the husband.
As for slavery, declaring how masters were to treat their slaves was a major step into undercutting the entire institution, while protecting the fledgling religion. Had Jesus decided to rail against slavery completely, he would have raised the ire of the Roman empire to such a degree as to stamp out the start of Christianity, as slavery was the backbone of much of the Roman's economic power. Secondly, by changing the way masters saw their slaves and by saying we are all brothers and sisters, he was making it more and more difficult to have slaves or see others as less than equal.
And yes, I know you will bring up why we had slaves up until recently, but it is not Jesus' fault that we screwed up and misread his intention.
Wait...maybe that book is smarter than you give it credit for...
You say you can make a strong moral code without divine intervention, but what is to say that your ideas of right and wrong are any better than those of Hitler's. He believed what he was doing was right. Or are you saying that the beliefs of the masses or of the majority is a way to determine overarching good and evil...well slavery was probably a good moral code.
Your main flaw is to believe that you can have a moral code without absolutes and these absolutes obviously cannot come from man as is demonstrated throughout our history.
Where else could they come from...hmmm...
And as for your Biblical questions, the answers to your cheap shots are painfully simple to one who can use a bit of historical reasoning, but since it is you, I will explain.
As far as the role of wife, many of the words that are used, such as "submission" have a decidedly richer and equitable context when applied in the Greek and Aramaic. The Christian marriage, properly applied, calls for a joint submission to God and to each other...the other part is only to give a pecking order in the unlikely event that a decision has to be made. If you look at the verses, God actually talks to the men quite a bit more about how they should treat their wifes than he does to the women about the husband.
As for slavery, declaring how masters were to treat their slaves was a major step into undercutting the entire institution, while protecting the fledgling religion. Had Jesus decided to rail against slavery completely, he would have raised the ire of the Roman empire to such a degree as to stamp out the start of Christianity, as slavery was the backbone of much of the Roman's economic power. Secondly, by changing the way masters saw their slaves and by saying we are all brothers and sisters, he was making it more and more difficult to have slaves or see others as less than equal.
And yes, I know you will bring up why we had slaves up until recently, but it is not Jesus' fault that we screwed up and misread his intention.
Wait...maybe that book is smarter than you give it credit for...
(this comment is slightly re-written)
Man, those rationalizations weren't forced at all. Uh, good job. Especially with the one where Jesus was really just hinting that slavery was wrong, and we all sort of misread his intention for two thousand years or so.
"The problem in your entire reasoning is your assertion that you can decide a moral core from an individual basis. You said there was no absolute good and evil; therefore your creation of your moral code is simply an attempt to decide what is "right" or "fair" or "equitable"...all of which, without an absolute, is completely open to an individual's persuasion."
Well, of course it is. How is that a problem in my reasoning? I never said my moral code was absolute for everyone. In fact, it's not even absolute for me. I can change my moral code whenever I think it's become outdated (while you have to desperately find some "historical reasoning" to justify it). What I said was that it's possible for a moral code not to be just a series of wants. I'm strong enough to prohibit myself from committing actions without needing the threat of hell hanging over me.
"what is to say that your ideas of right and wrong are any better than those of Hitler's"
Who cares? My ideas of right and wrong have nothing to do with Hitler's ideas of right and wrong. (Don't turn this discussion into one about societal functions or popular opinion setting social standards of morality. We're still talking about personal sense of purpose.)
Your Hitler analogy exposes your incorrect assumption. You're assuming that I think my sense of purpose or moral code can be ranked alongside others', and you think that because it's what you believe. So you assume that if you can prove that there can't BE a ranking system without a deity, then I have to believe in a deity to keep the ranking system. So your whole post is geared toward proving that a ranking system requires a deity. But what I'm saying is that there is no ranking system. My sense of purpose is entirely irrelevant and unmeasurable against anyone else's. They're all equally valid.
The fact that my purpose cannot be measured against an "absolute" metric doesn't mean I can't have a purpose. The purpose of my life can be to have a good time. It can be to help the children of the future. It can be to have as many experiences as possible. It can be whatever I want it to be, because there is nothing to say otherwise. I just have to be strong enough to determine my own meaning. If I am strong enough, then there is a wonderful freedom from the constraints of religious commands. I don't have to delve into intricate analyses of ancient Roman politics to explain why slavery is wrong, nor do I have to engage in interpretations of long-dead languages to explain why my wife is (almost!) equal to me.
Man, those rationalizations weren't forced at all. Uh, good job. Especially with the one where Jesus was really just hinting that slavery was wrong, and we all sort of misread his intention for two thousand years or so.
"The problem in your entire reasoning is your assertion that you can decide a moral core from an individual basis. You said there was no absolute good and evil; therefore your creation of your moral code is simply an attempt to decide what is "right" or "fair" or "equitable"...all of which, without an absolute, is completely open to an individual's persuasion."
Well, of course it is. How is that a problem in my reasoning? I never said my moral code was absolute for everyone. In fact, it's not even absolute for me. I can change my moral code whenever I think it's become outdated (while you have to desperately find some "historical reasoning" to justify it). What I said was that it's possible for a moral code not to be just a series of wants. I'm strong enough to prohibit myself from committing actions without needing the threat of hell hanging over me.
"what is to say that your ideas of right and wrong are any better than those of Hitler's"
Who cares? My ideas of right and wrong have nothing to do with Hitler's ideas of right and wrong. (Don't turn this discussion into one about societal functions or popular opinion setting social standards of morality. We're still talking about personal sense of purpose.)
Your Hitler analogy exposes your incorrect assumption. You're assuming that I think my sense of purpose or moral code can be ranked alongside others', and you think that because it's what you believe. So you assume that if you can prove that there can't BE a ranking system without a deity, then I have to believe in a deity to keep the ranking system. So your whole post is geared toward proving that a ranking system requires a deity. But what I'm saying is that there is no ranking system. My sense of purpose is entirely irrelevant and unmeasurable against anyone else's. They're all equally valid.
The fact that my purpose cannot be measured against an "absolute" metric doesn't mean I can't have a purpose. The purpose of my life can be to have a good time. It can be to help the children of the future. It can be to have as many experiences as possible. It can be whatever I want it to be, because there is nothing to say otherwise. I just have to be strong enough to determine my own meaning. If I am strong enough, then there is a wonderful freedom from the constraints of religious commands. I don't have to delve into intricate analyses of ancient Roman politics to explain why slavery is wrong, nor do I have to engage in interpretations of long-dead languages to explain why my wife is (almost!) equal to me.
Your 24-hour response time is ended! Yield to me! Yield to me your sword as the Quraysh did unto the Prophet!
is that kinda like "what would brian boitano do" only with brian dennehey instead?
# posted by : 10:15 PM
: 10:15 PM
Excuse me for jumping in uninvited, and I admit that I probably will not make the time to respond to any reactions to the question I am about to pose - however I find myself unable to restrain myself -
Why is it it a negative thing to explore history and culture to better understand a religious text? Generally speaking, in the other discussions I have read on Christopher's blog, it would seem that having as much background knowledge on an issue as possible would be a good thing, not only connecting one to others in the world, but also giving perspective that is not availble to one who focuses only on his/her life experiences.
What happened to learning from the mistakes and successes of others? Why is it desireable to be disconnected from others?
I also take issue with the the idea that one is weak if he follows a moral code that comes from another source. Why is it any weaker to consiously and thoughtfully CHOOSE to follow a pre-determined moral code than to create your own? Either way you are making the choice. The choice does not mean you follow a code with which you don't agree. It means you have looked at words intellegently for meaning. I would think someone who clearly appreciates good writing and the analysis of said literature would apply the same skills to a different type of book.
Finallly, one's moral code governs how he interacts with others. What is the benefit in absolute individualism in this area when the point is how to function with the rest of the world?
So there are my two cents worth. Take them or leave them.
Why is it it a negative thing to explore history and culture to better understand a religious text? Generally speaking, in the other discussions I have read on Christopher's blog, it would seem that having as much background knowledge on an issue as possible would be a good thing, not only connecting one to others in the world, but also giving perspective that is not availble to one who focuses only on his/her life experiences.
What happened to learning from the mistakes and successes of others? Why is it desireable to be disconnected from others?
I also take issue with the the idea that one is weak if he follows a moral code that comes from another source. Why is it any weaker to consiously and thoughtfully CHOOSE to follow a pre-determined moral code than to create your own? Either way you are making the choice. The choice does not mean you follow a code with which you don't agree. It means you have looked at words intellegently for meaning. I would think someone who clearly appreciates good writing and the analysis of said literature would apply the same skills to a different type of book.
Finallly, one's moral code governs how he interacts with others. What is the benefit in absolute individualism in this area when the point is how to function with the rest of the world?
So there are my two cents worth. Take them or leave them.
# posted by : 12:08 PM
: 12:08 PM
Welcome to the discussion, Ginny, we are glad to have you! (By the way, I am assuming this is Madame Herrick...if not, then welcome whoever you are!) Based on her assertions to the cause of right, I will now respond to the devious, unfounded, and morally reprehensible slanders of "Zhubin of the Black".
"I never said my moral code was absolute for everyone. In fact, it's not even absolute for me. I can change my moral code whenever I think it's become outdated (while you have to desperately find some "historical reasoning" to justify it)...I'm strong enough to prohibit myself from committing actions without needing the threat of hell hanging over me."
Well, first of all, we're not even talking about hell in this instance. We're merely discussing a divinely inspired sense of right and wrong. Now you say you are strong enough to prohibit yourself from committing actions without a threat, but it all goes back to my main point that, without some inherent sense of what is decent, there would be no desire, need, or even ability to decide such. In fact, if you are strong enough to do it, then you should do whatever you want to make you feel good, stimulate synapses in your brain, and release chemicals...to do things that do not accomplish any of these goals shows that there is an inherent code which makes murder or rape wrong even if it made you "feel" good (not saying you do...yet...)
"So your whole post is geared toward proving that a ranking system requires a deity. But what I'm saying is that there is no ranking system. My sense of purpose is entirely irrelevant and unmeasurable against anyone else's. They're all equally valid."
If they're all equally valid, why do we give great esteem to humanitarians, healers, teachers, and self-less givers and look down on tyrants and bullies. I agree that all are equally valid in that they are all chosen paths that someone can take and thus derive an inherent validity. However, there is too much black and white feeling towards some paths as opposed to others to believe that we have just "decided" because of our "strength" that some are nicer than others.
"The fact that my purpose cannot be measured against an "absolute" metric doesn't mean I can't have a purpose. The purpose of my life can be to have a good time. It can be to help the children of the future. It can be to have as many experiences as possible. It can be whatever I want it to be, because there is nothing to say otherwise."
The purpose of your life could be to rape, the purpose of your life could be mass slaughter, the purpose of...and on and on. Yes, it could, but it would be condemned. I'm not saying you couldn't choose that as a purpose, and there is nothing to say otherwise, but you and I know it is a bad purpose. Inherently, we see that as evil. Why? Why don't we give equal credenced to any life choice? Why should dictators be pulled down and humanitarians be put up? They all are making equally valid decision and, by your reasoning, a dictator who decides to murder his entire population is right in doing so if he has determined it is his purpose because it then is a valid one.
To close, I just find it funny that you think of it as weakness to have chosen to follow a moral code rather than being taken where the wind leads you. I agree with Ginny that we have both made a choice...the only difference is that mine has stood the test of time and yours will fade and sway with the times. Oh, and I'm not desperately trying to come up with excuses. If you did proper Biblical historical study from a strictly secular position, you will see wisdom and insight into the writings of Jesus that are absolutely astounding. However, if you want to continue to take cheap shots because of your unenlightenment...be my guest.
Your ball...
"I never said my moral code was absolute for everyone. In fact, it's not even absolute for me. I can change my moral code whenever I think it's become outdated (while you have to desperately find some "historical reasoning" to justify it)...I'm strong enough to prohibit myself from committing actions without needing the threat of hell hanging over me."
Well, first of all, we're not even talking about hell in this instance. We're merely discussing a divinely inspired sense of right and wrong. Now you say you are strong enough to prohibit yourself from committing actions without a threat, but it all goes back to my main point that, without some inherent sense of what is decent, there would be no desire, need, or even ability to decide such. In fact, if you are strong enough to do it, then you should do whatever you want to make you feel good, stimulate synapses in your brain, and release chemicals...to do things that do not accomplish any of these goals shows that there is an inherent code which makes murder or rape wrong even if it made you "feel" good (not saying you do...yet...)
"So your whole post is geared toward proving that a ranking system requires a deity. But what I'm saying is that there is no ranking system. My sense of purpose is entirely irrelevant and unmeasurable against anyone else's. They're all equally valid."
If they're all equally valid, why do we give great esteem to humanitarians, healers, teachers, and self-less givers and look down on tyrants and bullies. I agree that all are equally valid in that they are all chosen paths that someone can take and thus derive an inherent validity. However, there is too much black and white feeling towards some paths as opposed to others to believe that we have just "decided" because of our "strength" that some are nicer than others.
"The fact that my purpose cannot be measured against an "absolute" metric doesn't mean I can't have a purpose. The purpose of my life can be to have a good time. It can be to help the children of the future. It can be to have as many experiences as possible. It can be whatever I want it to be, because there is nothing to say otherwise."
The purpose of your life could be to rape, the purpose of your life could be mass slaughter, the purpose of...and on and on. Yes, it could, but it would be condemned. I'm not saying you couldn't choose that as a purpose, and there is nothing to say otherwise, but you and I know it is a bad purpose. Inherently, we see that as evil. Why? Why don't we give equal credenced to any life choice? Why should dictators be pulled down and humanitarians be put up? They all are making equally valid decision and, by your reasoning, a dictator who decides to murder his entire population is right in doing so if he has determined it is his purpose because it then is a valid one.
To close, I just find it funny that you think of it as weakness to have chosen to follow a moral code rather than being taken where the wind leads you. I agree with Ginny that we have both made a choice...the only difference is that mine has stood the test of time and yours will fade and sway with the times. Oh, and I'm not desperately trying to come up with excuses. If you did proper Biblical historical study from a strictly secular position, you will see wisdom and insight into the writings of Jesus that are absolutely astounding. However, if you want to continue to take cheap shots because of your unenlightenment...be my guest.
Your ball...
Chris, my dear boy, your logic is as faulty and outdated as your religion.
You argue that there must have been some sort of "inherent" belief system from which we built on, otherwise murder and rape would abound. It only makes sense for us to act upon our most basic instincts--such as stimulating our brain synapses, as you said--without a sense of an inherent foundation of beliefs. For why wouldn't we just rape and murder people, not caring about others and only ourselves, giving into our most primal state?
The answer is that our belief systems today come from that primal state, not some innate, divine set of beliefs. As I said in your previous post, if you look at our most basic motive as animals, it's to ensure our genetic success by reproducing. And sure that went on for thousands of years, but at some point, a group of animals realized the benefit of staying together. By forming a tribe or alliance, they greatly increased their chances of their specific genes surviving. In a group they could defend better, gather a greater amount of food, etc. But once this idea of tribes and alliances took hold, ideas built from that.
Fairness and justice, good and bad, all derive from the risk of breaking that tribe, causing war and destruction, and consequently, bringing a lower chance of survival back into the mix.
As for humanity praising those who bring forth new ideas of social and political equality, we praise them because they are the ones who continually move society forward by taking new steps and introducing new ideas that better our lives, just like those animals who first decided to form a tribe.
And I think that is Zhubin's point. His belief system is constantly evolving as his old one is being outdated. When racism was prevalent and common, it took movements and individuals to show why that belief system was archaic and damaging to society. Our morals and beliefs are constantly being changed as time progresses due to new ideas being born.
I think this whole debate simply parallels the mindset of those more scientifically inclined versus those more religiously inclined. We, as scientific people, have a set of beliefs, but once those beliefs are clearly proven wrong and outdated due to logic and evidence, we change them. We bend and adapt to society's constant progression, while you, the more religiously inclined people, stick to one set of beliefs regardless if the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. We use logic, reasoning, and evidence to ameliorate society’s condition, while you simply stick to an outdated book and attempt to apply it to times that call for a more updated view of life.
You argue that there must have been some sort of "inherent" belief system from which we built on, otherwise murder and rape would abound. It only makes sense for us to act upon our most basic instincts--such as stimulating our brain synapses, as you said--without a sense of an inherent foundation of beliefs. For why wouldn't we just rape and murder people, not caring about others and only ourselves, giving into our most primal state?
The answer is that our belief systems today come from that primal state, not some innate, divine set of beliefs. As I said in your previous post, if you look at our most basic motive as animals, it's to ensure our genetic success by reproducing. And sure that went on for thousands of years, but at some point, a group of animals realized the benefit of staying together. By forming a tribe or alliance, they greatly increased their chances of their specific genes surviving. In a group they could defend better, gather a greater amount of food, etc. But once this idea of tribes and alliances took hold, ideas built from that.
Fairness and justice, good and bad, all derive from the risk of breaking that tribe, causing war and destruction, and consequently, bringing a lower chance of survival back into the mix.
As for humanity praising those who bring forth new ideas of social and political equality, we praise them because they are the ones who continually move society forward by taking new steps and introducing new ideas that better our lives, just like those animals who first decided to form a tribe.
And I think that is Zhubin's point. His belief system is constantly evolving as his old one is being outdated. When racism was prevalent and common, it took movements and individuals to show why that belief system was archaic and damaging to society. Our morals and beliefs are constantly being changed as time progresses due to new ideas being born.
I think this whole debate simply parallels the mindset of those more scientifically inclined versus those more religiously inclined. We, as scientific people, have a set of beliefs, but once those beliefs are clearly proven wrong and outdated due to logic and evidence, we change them. We bend and adapt to society's constant progression, while you, the more religiously inclined people, stick to one set of beliefs regardless if the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. We use logic, reasoning, and evidence to ameliorate society’s condition, while you simply stick to an outdated book and attempt to apply it to times that call for a more updated view of life.
Bobak, Bobak, Bobak...for one who calls my beliefs simplistic and my logic faulty, there are holes so big in yours that I would have responded earlier but I just now climbed out. Also, I take the slams from Zhubin, but you are what...6 years old...bow to your betters...one day you will understand.
Going back to your brilliant idea that our idea of genetic survival naturally led to forming tribes which in turn bred philosophical thought...well I think you are being a bit simplistic. It is the worst kind of cause and effect to say that right, wrong, selflessness, etc was a "natural" evolution of not wanting to be crushed by the evil Parangs in the next valley. Don't you think you are being a bit naiive to think it just happened to happen...come on now...aren't you...
Oh, and your last attack on the superiority of having a scientific mindset over a religious mindset is wrong in SO many ways. First, many of the greatest scientists in history have been people of faith...faith that was strengthened by their scientific work not weakened. Secondly, your reckless and very "Zhubin"-esque assumption that you are constantly evolving into a better human being as society grows while I have stagnated in 32 AD is so inaccurate as to be laughable. There has yet to be any sort of proof or even valid reasoning that proves the Christian belief system inaccurate. I simply believe something that has been proven true over and over again. Let's go by what you said...prove it wrong and I'd totally change my opinion. And don't tell me it's not your job to prove it. Show me it's not true and I'd totally change. That's the main difference. I believe there is something greater than myself and you, sadly, believe in only what you can see and touch. Poor Bobabk, "I feel so sad for you." Ask, Zhubin about that quote...he'll remember it well...
Going back to your brilliant idea that our idea of genetic survival naturally led to forming tribes which in turn bred philosophical thought...well I think you are being a bit simplistic. It is the worst kind of cause and effect to say that right, wrong, selflessness, etc was a "natural" evolution of not wanting to be crushed by the evil Parangs in the next valley. Don't you think you are being a bit naiive to think it just happened to happen...come on now...aren't you...
Oh, and your last attack on the superiority of having a scientific mindset over a religious mindset is wrong in SO many ways. First, many of the greatest scientists in history have been people of faith...faith that was strengthened by their scientific work not weakened. Secondly, your reckless and very "Zhubin"-esque assumption that you are constantly evolving into a better human being as society grows while I have stagnated in 32 AD is so inaccurate as to be laughable. There has yet to be any sort of proof or even valid reasoning that proves the Christian belief system inaccurate. I simply believe something that has been proven true over and over again. Let's go by what you said...prove it wrong and I'd totally change my opinion. And don't tell me it's not your job to prove it. Show me it's not true and I'd totally change. That's the main difference. I believe there is something greater than myself and you, sadly, believe in only what you can see and touch. Poor Bobabk, "I feel so sad for you." Ask, Zhubin about that quote...he'll remember it well...
Touche on the slams. I was only trying to add to the playfullness of the situation, but your point is well taken. I wasn't trying to sound like a wise-ass little kid, no harm intended. To use the vernacular: I got nothing but love and admiration, Chris.
As for the debate!
"Going back to your brilliant idea that our idea of genetic survival naturally led to forming tribes which in turn bred philosophical thought...well I think you are being a bit simplistic. It is the worst kind of cause and effect to say that right, wrong, selflessness, etc was a "natural" evolution of not wanting to be crushed by the evil Parangs in the next valley. Don't you think you are being a bit naiive to think it just happened to happen...come on now...aren't you..."
It didn't just "happen to happen." It's not like one day it just struck some human being that being in a tribe would be beneficial. It was a gradual change over time, and the result of selection pressures from the environment. And how is this being naiive? I'm using evidence with logic. Furthermore, I could just as easily turn this around and ask you, aren't you a being a little bit too grandiose and romantic? Heck, I could even ask you: don't you think YOUR view is simplistic? How is my view simplistic when it depends on thousands of years of evolution, realization and cooperation, when yours depends on an all-mighty breathing life into clay and also a sense of inherent beliefs? Doesn't that seem a little bit more naiive and simple than my belief?
And I never said that scientists couldn't be people of faith, rather they did not strictly adhere to a religious belief system. I'm not saying someone who has a scientific mindset can't be a person of faith. What I'm trying to say is that there are different approaches, mindsets to social, political, and scientific thoughts. I believe that one, while approaching these areas, can be open to change and aware of evidence either supporting or against their belief. The mindset that I believe strictly clinging to religion results in is one of obstinancy, despite overwhelming evidence against their beliefs. I can assure you that great scientists were men and women open to reason, logic, and evidence, and they were constantly changing their beliefs in accordance with the evidence obtained from experiments.
As for the debate!
"Going back to your brilliant idea that our idea of genetic survival naturally led to forming tribes which in turn bred philosophical thought...well I think you are being a bit simplistic. It is the worst kind of cause and effect to say that right, wrong, selflessness, etc was a "natural" evolution of not wanting to be crushed by the evil Parangs in the next valley. Don't you think you are being a bit naiive to think it just happened to happen...come on now...aren't you..."
It didn't just "happen to happen." It's not like one day it just struck some human being that being in a tribe would be beneficial. It was a gradual change over time, and the result of selection pressures from the environment. And how is this being naiive? I'm using evidence with logic. Furthermore, I could just as easily turn this around and ask you, aren't you a being a little bit too grandiose and romantic? Heck, I could even ask you: don't you think YOUR view is simplistic? How is my view simplistic when it depends on thousands of years of evolution, realization and cooperation, when yours depends on an all-mighty breathing life into clay and also a sense of inherent beliefs? Doesn't that seem a little bit more naiive and simple than my belief?
And I never said that scientists couldn't be people of faith, rather they did not strictly adhere to a religious belief system. I'm not saying someone who has a scientific mindset can't be a person of faith. What I'm trying to say is that there are different approaches, mindsets to social, political, and scientific thoughts. I believe that one, while approaching these areas, can be open to change and aware of evidence either supporting or against their belief. The mindset that I believe strictly clinging to religion results in is one of obstinancy, despite overwhelming evidence against their beliefs. I can assure you that great scientists were men and women open to reason, logic, and evidence, and they were constantly changing their beliefs in accordance with the evidence obtained from experiments.
Bobak, I will respond to your further inane remarks with alacrity (meaning tomorrow when I have time), but wanted you to know that I did not think you were sounding like a wise-a@# kid nor did I mind at all the playful nature or tone of your unsupported jabs...no, I just enjoy picking on the Parangs in any way possible, such as you for your age or Zhubin for his career choice and belief system.
Ginny, even though you'll never respond, let me answer your statements briefly: certainly a sense of purpose and moral code can take into account previous experiences and historical knowledge. Mine certainly does. The difference here is that Christopher has NOT chosen the Christian moral code because he has thoughtfully determined that he agrees with it, as you think. Christopher follows the code because God has commanded him to follow it. Should God command Christopher to murder someone, he would do so immediately (Of course, Christopher would argue that his God would never order such a thing, but that's not the point - the point is that Christopher's adherence to the code is not based on any agreement with it).
The problem, of course, is that much of these supposedly divine moral codes grow outdated as time goes and society changes. Someone who is not attached to the codes can easily adapt to this; someone who believes that the code is the word of God, however, must either ignore the changing times (as much of Islam has) or devise dramatic historical reasons for why the moral codes of the ancients, which were perfectly natural for those times, actually meant something different that can be applied to our times.
Regarding your points, Christopher, we're not talking about "a divinely inspired sense of right and wrong." I'm still on the point that there can be a sense of purpose without adhering to God, while you seem to have shifted to arguing that we all have an inherent, divinely inspired moral code (I think we've already discussed this on your blog before). Your argument about why society hates murderers and dictators is entirely beside the point; just because you - or everyone - doesn't like someone's sense of purpose doesn't mean they didn't have one.
Both of us have liberally mixed up the phrases "sense of purpose" and "moral code," and it's gotten everything convoluted. All I am saying is that it is easy to have a sense of purpose without having it be based on God, and that you are wrong when you assume that a sense of purpose requires immortality. I'm not saying anything about the inherent validity of that sense of purpose, the effect of it on society, or anything else.
If you want to move on to a different point, say so here or start another post. But, at the very least, humbly acknowledge your error. Humbly.
The problem, of course, is that much of these supposedly divine moral codes grow outdated as time goes and society changes. Someone who is not attached to the codes can easily adapt to this; someone who believes that the code is the word of God, however, must either ignore the changing times (as much of Islam has) or devise dramatic historical reasons for why the moral codes of the ancients, which were perfectly natural for those times, actually meant something different that can be applied to our times.
Regarding your points, Christopher, we're not talking about "a divinely inspired sense of right and wrong." I'm still on the point that there can be a sense of purpose without adhering to God, while you seem to have shifted to arguing that we all have an inherent, divinely inspired moral code (I think we've already discussed this on your blog before). Your argument about why society hates murderers and dictators is entirely beside the point; just because you - or everyone - doesn't like someone's sense of purpose doesn't mean they didn't have one.
Both of us have liberally mixed up the phrases "sense of purpose" and "moral code," and it's gotten everything convoluted. All I am saying is that it is easy to have a sense of purpose without having it be based on God, and that you are wrong when you assume that a sense of purpose requires immortality. I'm not saying anything about the inherent validity of that sense of purpose, the effect of it on society, or anything else.
If you want to move on to a different point, say so here or start another post. But, at the very least, humbly acknowledge your error. Humbly.
I think we are going around in circles so I shall start a new post...but very UN-humbly...because the wrongness of all that spews from your post still fills me with mountains of bile...MOUNTAINS!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home
