Once upon a time in the universe that spontaneously came about in an uncaused way and in which all life evolved from a unicellular common ancestor, there lived some different organisms:
-Andy the amœba
-Gerry the giraffe
-Slate the enslaved human
-Reginald the independently wealthy human
Andy's independent existence came about after an asexual reproductive event. He was ready to conquer the world and enjoy eating other simple organisms through enveloping them, but while he was on his way toward eating one of them, he himself was eaten by a predator and died.
Gerry had grown to healthy middle-aged giraffehood and was the the most skilled among his friends at reaching the most delicious leaves and other foodstuffs, and yet shared generously with other giraffes and of course his children. However, one day he stepped badly on a tree root and broke his leg. Hyenas approached and slowly tore him apart while the other giraffes moved on to other trees.
Slate was a faithful slave to his master Reginald and served him well, even though Reginald was cruel and often whipped him just because he enjoyed it. Slate brought Reginald a significant amount of wealth through labor that grew in skill as Slate grew older. Reginald never showed any appreciation for it and never put forth much effort to ensure Slate's well-being. One day, Slate contracted a simple infection that could have been cured with a few days' rest. Reginald withheld that rest with full knowledge of the infection, and Slate died at the age of 39.
Reginald, the aforementioned slave master, had been born to a wealthy family with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth. He was shrewd and always took advantage of others, especially his slaves, to increase his personal wealth. He never worked a day of manual labor in his life and treated his slaves and family in ways that they found most distasteful and often painful. As much as they pled with him to be merciful, he grew crueler and more controlling. He died at age 94, peacefully in his sleep.
Andy, Gerry, Slate, and Reginald all went to the same place - death and decomposition.
The End.
What a wonderful fable to illustrate the simple truth that, since the destination is the same for all, the only thing that really matters is how one gets there.
ReplyDeleteWhy does how one gets there matter?
ReplyDeleteYou just explained why!
ReplyDeleteUnless - what point did you think you were making?
I'm actually not following you. Could you please elucidate?
ReplyDeleteThe lesson I draw from that fable is that, since the destination is the same for all, the only thing that matters is how one gets there. I assumed that this was what you intended when you wrote it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm not understanding is why this statement from you is true: the only thing that really matters is how one gets there.
ReplyDeleteWhy does that matter?
I'm sorry, now I'm not following you. Do you believe that all of those paths (to the same destination) are the same?
ReplyDeleteNo, clearly not the same. But why does it matter?
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is another incident where when you say a word, you're using it in a specialised Paul-C-sense where it means sthg different than what most people mean. What does "really matters" mean to you, here?
As always, I'm using the word in the sense you will find in most dictionaries: "something matters" means it is of importance.
ReplyDeleteAny why is it of importance?
ReplyDeleteSorry, you're asking me why I am of importance to me?
ReplyDeleteOn the face of it, that seems to be a ridiculous question.
If you would permit me, Rhology, I wish to make a few tweaks to your fable.
ReplyDeleteRather than a universe that was not specially created, let us transport this fable into a universe that was specially created by the god of the bible.
Your entire synopsis of Slate the enslaved human can remain the same, except for the additional fact that, for his entire life and until his death from that nasty infection, Slate was a devout Muslim.
Your entire synopsis of Reginald the independently wealthy human can remain the same, too, except for the additional fact that, on the evening preceding his peaceful death in his sleep, Reginald repented sincerely for his cruel ways and accepted Jesus into his heart.
If you were to venture a guess, to which eternal fates might you expect Slate the enslaved human and Reginald the independently wealthy human to be subjected?
More moral implications? What difference does it make to you?
ReplyDeleteThe story would need to be further tweaked if we were swapping it over to a Christian universe - both Slate and Reginald are sinners, rebels before a holy God. However horrible Reginald's sins, Jesus died on the Cross, taking the punishment for them, and Reginald receives as a free gift the righteousness of Christ.
Slate, OTOH, refused to repent and so bears his own sins, which for his own part are also great, before the judgment of God, and God gives him what he desired - rejection of God.
Which ultimately means that one’s actions in life are irrelevant and have no actual moral implications. Reginald could have killed 500 million people and, in addition, poisoned the water supply of a children’s school, but the only action of his that would matter, vis-à-vis ultimate consequences, would be his final-evening repentance.
ReplyDeleteIgnorant strawman, JN. Why not just ask me if such and such would be the case, if you don't know?
ReplyDeleteAnd in point of fact, no, that is totally wrong.
1) Reginald's sins DO matter - the punishment for them is borne by Christ on the Cross.
2) There are degrees of reward in Heaven and degrees of punishment in Hell (Luke 12:47-48, 1 Corinthians 3:10ff).
3) God uses the actions done in life to lead His people to repentance. God uses means. He doesn't !!zap!! people.
Now, if you want to talk about irrelevant actions, I know about this atheistic nihilism thing I'd like to discuss.
I'm confused, Rhology - why does any of what you're saying matter?
ReplyDeletep.s. Have you given up on Tkalim? He's about to go and kidnap another young girl from a neighbouring tribe, you'd better hurry!
ReplyDeletePaul C,
ReplyDeleteIt matters b/c Christianity is in fact true.
And it doesn't matter if atheism is true. that's kinda the point.
I'll get to Tkalim - my time and mental bandwidth are limited (the latter of which should be obvious).
It matters b/c Christianity is in fact true.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it matter because Christianity is true though? I mean, why does it matter for those four individuals you described?
And it doesn't matter if atheism is true.
ReplyDeleteIt matters to me, and I assume it matters to the Jolly Nihilist, so clearly it does matter even if atheism is true.
That's called a personal fantasy, Paul C. I'm glad it makes you feel better, but what does that have to do with anything?
ReplyDeleteJolly said:
ReplyDelete"Which ultimately means that one’s actions in life are irrelevant and have no actual moral implications."
According to who's worldview?
That's called a personal fantasy, Paul C. I'm glad it makes you feel better, but what does that have to do with anything?
ReplyDeleteYour point was that nothing is important if atheism is true. Since "important" in this case is something that is decided by the individual, and not according to an external measure, then I'm not sure what you're point is. That what is important is up to each individual to decide? I agree.
From your language, you seem to think that you have a killer argument of some sort. I'm not sure why, though.
To be clear, I don't believe that what is "important" can be defined by anybody other than the individual. If you want to argue an alternative, you first have to demonstrate to me that what is "important" in the context of their own life even *can* be defined by somebody other than the individual.
ReplyDelete(After sleeping on the matter, I've also realised that you probably started with the rhetorical gimmick of "personal fantasy" because you don't have any rational counter to my line of argument.)
ReplyDeleteRight, that's all it is.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you, an atheist, that I know God exists. You can tell me that He doesn't exist out there, but I'm welcome to my fantasy.
Sauce for the goose, Paul.
I can tell you, an atheist, that I know God exists. You can tell me that He doesn't exist out there, but I'm welcome to my fantasy.
ReplyDeleteYes, but the difference between us is that I don't patronise or ridicule your beliefs by calling them "fantasy".
Can I take it that you don't have a counter to my argument that only the individual can decide what's important in their own life?
And if I ridicule you, so what? Is there some moral problem with that? Am I committing some moral wrong against you?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you are telling me you've never called belief in tGotB "fantasy", OK, I believe you - your memory about what you've said is surely better than mine on that count. But that characterisation of Christianity is very prevalent on teh Interw3bz, so it's quite relevant.
a counter to my argument that only the individual can decide what's important in their own life?
1) So what?
2) I granted it, and properly labeled a belief that exists only in your mind and does not reflect any external reality a "fantasy". Sorry if that offends you, but, you know, so what?
3) And why inform anyone else about your decisions? And expect anyone else to care? And act like you think it should have any normative force for anyone else?
properly labeled *it* a belief
ReplyDeleteAnd if I ridicule you, so what? Is there some moral problem with that?
ReplyDeleteNo.
But that characterisation of Christianity is very prevalent on teh Interw3bz, so it's quite relevant.
What's important for the purposes of this discussion is that none of the people you are talking to are ridiculing or patronising your beliefs. So why lower the tone of the discussion and make yourself look foolish by treating us like that?
1) So what?
If my argument is true, then your argument is false.
2) I granted it, and properly labeled a belief that exists only in your mind and does not reflect any external reality a "fantasy".
I see. Is your love for your wife a personal fantasy?
3) And why inform anyone else about your decisions? And expect anyone else to care? And act like you think it should have any normative force for anyone else?
You've lost me.
Is your love for your wife a personal fantasy?
ReplyDeleteDo you think I think atheism is true?
Of course not, but Christianity is not atheism.
If you meant: On atheism, is your love for your wife a personal fantasy?
Then the answer is 100% absolutely yes. I defy you to show me why not.
1. You said that "a belief that exists only in your mind and does not reflect any external reality" is a personal fantasy.
ReplyDelete2. Whether you are Christian or atheist, your love for your wife exists only in your mind and does not reflect any external reality.
3. Therefore your love for your wife is a personal fantasy regardless of your faith or lack of faith. I'm not saying that's true, because I don't believe it. I'm just pointing out the problem with your position.
It does absolutely reflect an external reality. My love for her is a work of God, Who created that love in me.
ReplyDeleteAnd it will be tested in the fire of judgment a la 1 Corinthians 3. Remember that I'm a Christian, not a materialist. Deal with it on Christian terms.