A Facebook acquaintance had posted a status update recently, expressing doubt that there's really any point to all of this.
Here is our PM exchange:
Me -> acquaintance
I recall that we talked a few years ago about Jesus, and I'm just wondering what you've thought about with respect to Him over these last few years, related to your recent status update. If there really is no point, what's stopping you from turning to Jesus?
If you say that you don't think He exists, I'd offer two thoughts:
1) When was the last time you asked Him whether He exists with a truly open heart? Only you know the answer to that.
2) If there's no point, are you really worse off repenting of your sin and putting your trust in Jesus than staying an agnostic or whatever?
(I say #2 just as a thought exercise, I am convinced that Christianity is the only rational worldview and has more than enough solid argumentation in its favor.)
Anyway, I'd love to talk if you want.
Peace,
Acquaintance -> me
Yeah man I have done tons of research into religion. I find that the actual purpose to Jesus' teaching is that we all have a connection to the divine. The problem is that religion has been misguided into a ruleset to control the population. I invited jesus into my heart many years ago and only found that the bible was not a great translation of the original stories and that half the story was deemed unfit by the council. it seems that there may have been a conspiracy to hide information from the masses from the beginning. I understand that this may be far fetched to you as you are comfortable with your religious views. However, my research has expanded far beyond simple faith and now has left me feeling that the world is so far gone from real truth that we are doomed to face the inadequacies of our mistaken worldview.
Me -> acquaintance
We talked about this approx 3 yrs ago, and you gave me the same answer, heavy on the conspiracy theories and devoid of much of any factual basis. The misguidance and partial misuse of a system doesn't make the system wrong, it could be true but twisted by people, meaning that the truth is there to be found.
You're probably confusing translation with transmission, b/c for one thing, translating from Greek and Hebrew to English is very straightforward. And seriously, I mean no disrespect to you; rather, I'm pleading with you. If you don't even know the word to describe what you're trying to say, shouldn't that tell you that you don't have nearly enough info to make a decision about a topic that's so important as your eternal soul?
You apparently prefer to deceive yourself thinking all of this foggy gobbledygook when you yourself just admitted that life has no meaning. If life has no meaning, then truth has no meaning and there's no reason to seek truth. Indeed, there's no reason to complain that life has no meaning. So why do you do it?
You do it b/c you know that you've done wrong and that you are liable to answer for your lawbreaking before God, but you don't want to dwell on it b/c it makes you feel too guilty and you don't want to repent before Jesus.
Actually, my religious views as you call them don't make me very comfortable at all in a lot of ways, b/c they remind me that I have a long, long way to go if I am to be like Jesus. Indeed, I'll never get there until I die, when God will make me like Him, but it won't be b/c of anything I've done.
Anyway, why would anyone (indeed, SHOULD anyone) hold to a worldview that they know bereaves them of any meaning in life when they could have a different worldview that DOES provide meaning? You might answer "Well, I don't think that other one is true", but if life has no meaning, so what? Your worldview is the ultimate "So what?" May the Lord have mercy on you for that.
Peace,
Sad, so sad is the lost state of this person and so many others.
See also here.
7 comments:
Man, have you been reading Ecclesiastes recently or something?
14 The wise man has eyes in his head, while the fool walks in the darkness; but I came to realize that the same fate overtakes them both.
15 Then I thought in my heart, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless."
16 For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die!
In regards to the question of why believe in atheism, even assuming it is true:
Well, firstly, I obviously disagree that the lack of objective meaning means that there can't be a kind of subjective meaning or joy. There are no objective "colors," it's all just the manner in which our eyes subjectively interpret light waves, but it doesn't follow that the color "blue" doesn't exist.
But even if I were to grant that naturalism throws us into a pit of nihilistic despair, I would still be an atheist, mostly because of the limits of human psychology. Suppose that the most popular religion in the world had as one of its core doctrines that the human head is smaller than the human thumb. Even if this religion offered a path out of "meaninglessness," I wouldn't join it because I just can't force myself to believe something I know to be false. The cognitive dissonance would be unbearable. It's the same way with Christianity for me, and a lot of people, just because it's currently the democratically chosen one true religion doesn't change the fact that it has manifold doctrinal problems that are impossible for me to accept.
This may sound slightly patronizing, but Plantiga actually offered the same line of reasoning in his essay "Theism, Atheism, and Rationality," except in favor of God belief.
Plantiga:
If, for example, you offer me $1,000,000 to cease believing that Mars is smaller than Venus, there is no way I can collect. But the same holds for my belief in God: even if I wanted to, I couldn't-short of heroic measures like coma inducing drugs-just divest myself of it.
Hi jft,
Yeah, I dig Ecclesiastes.
So, no objective meaning, but you decide to just create subjective value. That's called living in a fantasy world. I thought atheists were all about living in the real world. Did you read the companion post?
There are no objective "colors," it's all just the manner in which our eyes subjectively interpret light waves, but it doesn't follow that the color "blue" doesn't exist.
But it's objectively true that that wavelength of light is interpreted by the human brain as blue. It's not the same thing at all. There's not even a referent to meaning in the world, according to atheism.
Even if this religion offered a path out of "meaninglessness," I wouldn't join it because I just can't force myself to believe something I know to be false.
That's fine, whoopie. But there's nothing good about believing what's true.
The cognitive dissonance would be unbearable.
So?
Plantiga actually offered the same line of reasoning in his essay
There's actually meaning in Christianity, though - quite a lot. The reversal is not similar.
Yeah, I dig Ecclesiastes.
As do I. I think it's one of one of the mostly beautifully written and heartbreaking essays that you kind find. And not just in the Bible, I mean in the history of literature.
So, no objective meaning, but you decide to just create subjective value.
Well, isn't that what you are essentially arguing for? That, given the presumption of Atheism, it is still more rational to believe in Christianity. I.E. believe in a false worldview that is capable providing you with meaning?
But it's objectively true that that wavelength of light is interpreted by the human brain as blue.
Ah, but not for people who suffer with cerebral achromatopsia. What is blue for you is "light grey" for them. "Blue" as you know it doesn't exist for them. And if something "exists"for one person but not for another, isn't that the very definition of "subjectivity?"
That's fine, whoopie. But there's nothing good about believing what's true.
Well, my second argument for believing in atheism in the face of nihilism came from the limits of psychology. I.E., a person can't believe something they sincerely believe to be false any more than they can bench press 1000 lbs. (Well, short of extreme measures such as surrounding yourself with people who hold that belief, cutting off contact to the outside world, and hiring shrink to slowly coax you into the belief) In this case, then whether or not there is "value" in believing true things is irrelevant.
I did read the other post, and your argument seems to be effectively:
P1)Any meaning that an atheist might have in life is purely subjective. (I.E. meaningful only to an individual)
P2) Anything that exists subjectively doesn't exist in reality.
C) "Meaning" in atheism doesn't exist.
And I agree if this argument was sound, then atheists would be "living inconsistently with their worldview." (And again I want to emphasize that how consistently one lives with their worldview tells us nothing about whether that worldview is true orfalse) But then again so would Christians. Because to argue that that if something exists purely subjectively effectively doesn't exist leads to a slew of absurdities, such as denying the existence of color and "heat."
Suppose a Christian friend of yours told you "Man it's hot out today." Would you snap back "By what standard?" After all, God never ruled on what is considered as "hot" or "cold," so these concepts exist purely subjectively if we presume Christianity. Understanding this, would you accuse your friend of living inconsistently?
I submit that instead, you would simply accept that for your friend "hot" equated to above 87 degrees, which is an acceptable part of reality, while for you it might be 92 degrees, which is an equally acceptable part of reality. To say that hot is subjective doesn't mean that "hot" doesn't exist entirely, and it's the same with "purpose" or "meaning" under atheism.
Hi jft,
That, given the presumption of Atheism, it is still more rational to believe in Christianity. I.E. believe in a false worldview that is capable providing you with meaning?
Might as well. What's the advantage, the incentive, to believing what is true? Especially b/c, if it's true, there's no value in ANYthing?
Ah, but not for people who suffer with cerebral achromatopsia. What is blue for you is "light grey" for them. "Blue" as you know it doesn't exist for them.
The light wavelength does.
P2) Anything that exists subjectively doesn't exist in reality.
I'd restate it thus: P2) Anything that exists subjectively exists ONLY for that person, inside his own imagination. And it's called "fantasy" in any other situation.
Suppose a Christian friend of yours told you "Man it's hot out today." Would you snap back "By what standard?"
Cute, but we're hardly discussing colloquial phrases in obviously surface-level conversation.
Man, you're arguing awfully hard to justify your personal fantasies. They must be some good ones.
The light wavelength does.
Except it doesn't. What we call "blue" is our eye's and brain's subjective interpretation of a 440-490 nanometer wavelength of light. That particular wavelength has no intrinsic "blue" quality, we just call it that because of how we perceive it, and if your brain or eye was slightly different in some specific ways, it would interpret that light in a completely different manner. This all relates to John Locke's concept of primary and secondary qualities.
Anything that exists subjectively exists ONLY for that person, inside his own imagination. And it's called "fantasy" in any other situation.
Well, I think this premise is also clearly false. Or at the very least, if you accept it, it leads to absurdities that make it impossible to "live consistently."
I'll give a third example (not that I think the "color" and "hot" have been rebutted mind you): pain. Pain obviously exists subjectively, even presuming Christianity. I don't think God ever lays of out objective standards whereby one can claim one sensation as absolutely "painful." So is the Christian who says "My arm hurts" living in a fantasy world of his own imagination where this meaningless concept of "pain" exists?
Obviously if they are pricked with a pin, that pain exists for them, and not for you, and therefore the pain has no "objective" basis in reality. So that gives us two options: either accept your stated premise and say that anyone who claims to experience pain is living in make believe land of their own fevered imaginings, or reject your premise and accept that "My arm hurts" is a factually true and real statement, even though its basis is 100% subjective.
Man, you're arguing awfully hard to justify your personal fantasies. They must be some good ones.
Well, I obviously don't think that you have established that "purpose" under atheism or naturalism is fantastical, nor do I expect you to be convinced of this point (as the argument that atheism is meaninglessness and Christanity is not is a vital evangelical selling point). But I do want you to understand what an atheist means when they say that they feel that their life is purposeful and fulfilling. If we are to be OK with "I see blue" as a possibly factual statement, then we have no grounds for an atheist saying "My purpose in life is X," isn't an equally factual statement.
I love how most arguments I have or read, always lead to the non-believer having the last say because the believer apparently gets "fed up" of argueing...It kinda helps I've been educated in both the sciences and religions :)
I'd say over the lifetime of this blog, I've had "the last word" just over 50% of the time. I don't think that really means anything profound, but I do think that's how it's been, though I could be mistaken.
Post a Comment