quote:

---

When I "live in" the view that the unverse will eventually dissipate to a total state of equilibrium (heat death/ cold nothingingness/ no remaining energy) I bottom out. The thought that NOTHING FRIGG"N MATTERS AT ALL -- good, evil, achievements, beauty, stories, adventures, music, art, loves, hates, wars, sacrifices, thoughts... zero zero zero zero.... I FLAT OUT DIVE INTO THE DEEPEST BLACK WHOLE IMAGINABLE. I have trouble getting out of bed in the morning. I rage inside. Then I deflate.

I once got nauseated reading THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS (CAMUS) searching for meaning in a University Cafe one day. On my professor's advice, I pretty much pinned my hopes for finding meaning in an atheistic worldview on this book.

To say it "failed" is a MAJOR understatement. It succeeded in helping drive me to the Cross.

Seems to me, Meph, that IF WE GET IN TOUCH WITH IT, we (or at least some of us) are "wired for" a belief in God, r eternal signficance, f the conviction that good shall conquer evil, love shall triumph over evil, beauty over ugliness, truth over falsehood -- like lungs are "wired" for air and stomaches for food.

The DESIRE points to the REALITY.

If THIS isn't true, then a) life is more absurd than anyone has ever imagined (well, Kafka came close) and b) there isn't anything worth believing as true. Indeed, "truth" itself is absurd.

If God doesn't exist, then it seems to me that even the conclusion that God doesn't exist and life is absurd is an absurd conclusion... for the reasoning process that leads to it is simply a chemical reaction.

---

So I thought about it. What if I granted the existence of God but with ANOTHER view of afterlife? This view could accomodate what we are "wired for": eternal significance (of a type), the "good over evil" conviction, etc. Basically, I could affirm that all things were really reconciled to the Creator. But I didn't see how this would get Doc out of his "black hole"! I recall Doc once saying that without God, it wouldn't matter if one were Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa...because there would be no moral standard. But here's the thing: DEATH was the true enemy, not the absence of a moral standard. The implicit fear, as I saw, it was this: Hitler and Mother Teresa, though completely separate in moral character, would have the SAME end...cessation of individual existence via oblivion. No, let's make it broader than that. The fear is that the choices of sentient beings in this life have NO ULTIMATE significance eternally speaking. Cessation of individual existence of ALL persons naturally implies that. Hence, the inevitable loss of EXISTENTIAL meaning. Not cool, right? Right.

BUT...

Is the cessation of individual existence COMPATIBLE with a theistic God? I certainly think so. But the "same ends" problem would still be there, wouldn't it? Yep. And that would most definitely affect things. Hopefully, this shows what I've said numerous times: A divine telos for existence does NOT NECESSARILY translate directly into PERSONAL MEANING. So, saying that a theistic, loving, moral God exists doesn't mean that the problem is solved.

[Digression: Think about this. If universalism is true, wouldn't it just about have the same effect on some believers that the finality of death has on some non-believers? Sartre tried to answer the question "Why shouldn't I commit suicide?" and gave an answer about rebelling against the temporary madness of life. Shouldn't universalists be asking the SAME question. If I'm living in a friggin pitiful existence, and I genuinely believe that upon death, I will be in a place where there is no more hatred, pain, or need...and that I will NOT be rejected...what POSSIBLE reason could you give me NOT to commit suicide? Hmmm...]


Now, want to see a good payoff of Christianity? Individual, subjective existence is ENTAILED in being in Jesus as Son of God. Why?

1) If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then you'd have to believe that what Jesus said about the afterlife was true, and Jesus indicated that persons would still be PERSONS in heaven.

2) Jesus' resurrection and continuation as an individual after death would seem to provide prima facie evidence that the afterlife is one of subjective, individual existence.


But let's admit what's going on here. For many of us Christians, we give a rip about God because of OUR VIEW OF POST-MORTEM EXISTENCE and hopes for it. We are like Paul...

1 Cor 15:9, 29-32

"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

and...

"Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day-- I mean that, brothers-- just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised (Meph's Note: Subjective, individual existence seems implied here) , "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Would we serve God(Jesus) as vigorously if we DIDN'T believe in subjective, individual post-mortem existence? If we were JUST confronted with that FACT of God's lordship? Hmmm...


Anyways, these have just been some things I've been thinking about...



PS: Is it just me or does this WHOLE thing seem QUITE anthropocentric? Our incessant NEED to be the center of things, including divine intentionality? Hmm...

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/15/2002 2:57:38 PM

quote:

---

I think a person could deem life meaningful if they believed they contributed to something eternal, even if they believed they themselves would cease to exist. This is the standard Process view of the afterlife. (Objective immortality). I think it accomplishes much of what I was arguing for with my anthropic argument. (How do we render intelligible our longing for rationality, morality and purpose).

---

I hear ya. But I don't see how objective morality provides MEANING on an existential level. I think this goes back to what I really think: Divine telos doesn't automatically translate into PERSONAL meaning. I think this may be what you are talking about. The wish to PARTICIPATE in the meaning. This CREATES the sense of personal meaning, right? What does it matter to know that God will "remember" us when we are dead and gone? What does it matter that God could "remember" the universe, if it happens to fall into entropy? Is that the consolation we are to receive for the absolute end of our personal existences?

Moreover, let's look at the morality angle...

What difference does it make whether or not I act like a Hitler or a Ghandi? God has better memories of me or something? LOL It doesn't really matter, now does it? I guess if I want to give God the better "show" for his creative dollar, I could. But I'd have to want to...and WHY should I want to? For that matter, what would be the response to suicide? Wouldn't it essentially be just as unsatisfying as with naturalism? "Even though in the end, you're a TV show to God, revolt and actually TAKE PRIDE in that telos!" Hmmm... doesn't seem to work to me. Is cessation of personal existence is what we ALL have to face, what does it matter? God's getting a good TV show regardless.

How truly different is this from existentialism?

Here's the thing: Meaning is ALWAYS appropriated. And this means that subjectivity is always involved. So how can LASTING personal meaning be provided by a view that proposes 1) cessation of the subjective, individual existence and 2) OBJECTIVE immortality (that is purpose that is NOT internalized by the so-called purpose-filled thing? Let's concede that DEATH was truly the enemy of the naturalist...because it showed that in the end our personal lives really didn't matter. I don't see how this same thing isn't the enemy of the theist.

Help me out. Do you feel that objective immortality really fulfills the needs for personal meaning?



Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/15/2002 7:34:30 PM

quote:

---

Many theists say that God is necessary for existence not to be absurd. Check it out. Let's presuppose that a rational, emotional, moral Creator God exists. But let's also say that there is NO subjective, individual afterlife. In other words, even IF there is an afterlife, we won't be cognitively aware of it...at all. Is life anymore meaningful under these conditions?

If the cessation of INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE is not transcended in any way, does the existence of God ULTIMATELY really matter? If so, why?


Doc, I REALLY want your input on this. For obvious reasons.

---

quote:

---

Would you guys mind giving a brief definition of subjective vs. objective immortality? From what I've read of these posts thus far, subjective immortality is akin to what most Christians think of as the afterlife---with a subjective, personal experience?

---

Keepin' it simple. I like to think of this by focusing on the terms--subjective vs objective--in the context of PERCEPTION of immortality. With subjective immortality, you have the "subject-self" AWARE of his/her postmortem existence (whatever that may be). This presupposes personal experience of that being. With OBJECTIVE immortality, the perception of one's immortality lies OUTSIDE the that one's self. With this, it is not even necessary that the subject CONTINUE to exist. Specifically, God (for the sake of simplicity) "remembers" the subject's past existence...and in that "memory", the subject is immortalized in the mind of God. (Of course, we can get into the past being "solidified" so to speak and go into all types of detail, but why bother, right? )

And you are right about subjective immortality being "what most Christians think of as the afterlife---with a subjective, personal experience"

Does this help? Hope so. If you others think more needs to be filled in, be my guest.



Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/16/2002 10:05:04 AM

quote:

---

Here's my two-cents while the title is still asking for 'things simple.' The sketch of "God" and the sketch of "afterlife" are quite different. Electra is on target. The difference is the God-sketch has at least a little hope of being personal. The afterlife-sketch does not.

---

quote:

---

And you are wondering why a theist who believed in objective immortality is in any better existential position than the atheist/naturalist?

---

Indeed, BJS. It doesn't seem to make them THAT much better off at all. Yeah, they appropriate what they feel to be things that God "aims" (like beauty, truth, and goodness) as being "purposes", but they still face the wall of non-being that the naturalistic atheists run into. So, what does this do but make them BETTER EXISTENTIALISTS because they (as opposed to te naturalist atheist) have something objective from whence to start? They have to deal with the absurdities of ended sentient potentialities and unbalanced score just like the others. See what I mean?

Now, this lead me to thinking. It seems that the only REAL payoff for a theistic believer who wanted...

-- the eternal process of becoming AS persons

and

--the ultimate triumph of righteousness and JUSTICE

...one could NOT be satified with just the existence of a perfectly loving, omniscient, omnipotent Being who wishes to have genuine relationship with us. This would NOT leave said believer existentially satisfied (which, to me, is saying a LOT) One would somehow HAVE to posit subjective immortality. Hmmmm...

But let's understand. I'm not trying to make an argument for subjective immortality per se. I'm just noticing that our desire for it may NOT be DIRECTLY LINKED to our non-sensory perceptions of Ultimate Reality...because it is possible to have the needs for permanence and unification with ultimate reality met WITHOUT subjective immortality. This has certain implications.

But, then my brain kept going. Doc's idea about the seeming ubiquity of nature produced what we "hunger" for. The idea is pretty tight. But here's the thing. It seemed to me that it could be POSSIBLE for these human needs (ie rationality, morality, purpose, etc) to be met without subjective, personal postmortem existence. If that was the case, then there seemed to be an important disjunct between satisfying our metaphysical need for God to humans actually POSSESSING subjective immortality. And it doesn't entail a speaking, revealing God either. Moreover, human beings historically have seen to have a penchant for anthropocentrism in many areas of thought...as opposed to thinking more wholistically. Not to mention that many humans THRIVE in the "knowledge of good and evil" So, I wonder: is it possible that SOME religious beliefs are BASED on the core "hungers" that we perceive that point to God...but go considerably further than that, being colored by KGE and anthropocentrism? It seemed possible to me.


Now, here's something. And please EVERYONE keep yer draws on! I'm just thinkin' here!

It would seem that by the Incarnation (even WITHOUT the Resurrection) that God is affirm humanity to SUCH AN EXTENT that some manner of anthropocentrism may even seem justifiable. Yet, it's very interesting that this whole thing COINCIDENTALLY happens to meet many, if not ALL, of the desires an anthropocentric person could ask for.

So, what I'm personally left with here is a chicken vs egg dilemma. Does our view of Christian faith COME FROM the existential cookies (justice fulfilled, subjective immortality) that I stated many of us want, coupled with the genuine, yet misguided statements of the son of a Jewish carpenter...or...

does the Incarnation (which actually took place) just "HAPPEN" to give us ALL the things we were hoping for in a nice, neat package (relatively speaking, of course)

[Digression: Anyone here know about the beginnings of the B'ahai faith? With the Bab and the one who came after? Does that seem like a Jesus/John the Baptist parallel or what??]


Now given the "hermeneutics of suspicion" that can apply here, what should we think about this? Could it be the case that myth anticipated reality THAT perfectly? Heck, yeah! But hmmm...what's the probability? About nil, right, Modes? I look at all the Christians who really just seem to be in this whole thing BECAUSE of the lure of eternal life and utopian existence...and I'm left wondering. I look at some of the other faith worldviews out there...and wonder. Is it POSSIBLE that what some theologians believe...that ALL religions are HUMAN grasps at the Divine reality that point to something they can ONLY see darkly...including Christianity? That religious experiences are valid and real, but more perspectival than we want to acknowledge? Is it POSSIBLE that there were indeed HUMAN reasons for people holding to the resurrection of Jesus? Maybe. YES, the Incarnation is "offensive" to human thinking in many ways...but maybe that shouldn't be considered such a GOOD thing.


Think about it. Doesn't it raises anyones eyebrows that Judeo-Christian thought (as is often perceived nowadays) is SO anthropocentric? God being our veritable rapturous lover. Now am I saying this is not possible? I'd be foolish to do so. But IF we were to factor in human penchant for placing OURSELVES (either implicitly or explicitly) in the center of divine affairs (in Ptolemiac fashion), wish-fulfillment, desires for subjective immortality, and existential angst with UNFAIR situations...could we conceivably come to the conclusion that MAYBE there really are human reasons behind some peoples faith? Let's think about it. The comforting idea of seeing one's tragically killed family or friends in heaven. The "knowing" that they are happy and waiting for you. Of course, this belief that people have presupposes subjective immortality in a state of PERFECT bliss. You mean to tell me this couldn't be a human reason for belief?

Holla at this. Some interesting things happen when you untangle these threads:

--theistic belief
--afterlife
--"miraculous" occurances

Some theologians kinda lump them all together in a system and unintentionally give the impression that a thought in one NECESSITATES a certain view with respect to the others. (For example, somehow people somehow link "miracles" to proof of an afterlife) But once you untangle them, you get some interesting perspectives on things...like religious motivation. Just because I believe God speaks to me DOESN'T NECESSARILY mean that there is an afterlife . Just because I've experienced something "miraculous" doesn't NECESSARILY mean that there is a God. Ah, but if I say that I've experienced the Risen Christ...why, NOW I've ALL THREE in my pocket. How nice.


I wonder do we know HOW MUCH we are wagering on the belief of Jesus being the Son of God...and how SUPRArational our reasons may be for accepting that belief.

A Blaze of Firing Neurons Right Now ,



PS: Doc, perhaps it would be nice to demonstrate the persuasiveness of the "dimension" of the metaphysically created longing that deals with eternal participation. That may come in handy.

"The problem is not that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem."
--Theodore Rubin

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/16/2002 2:07:45 PM

quote:

---

Is your line of thought implying that communion with God IN ANY WISE necessitates subjective immortality?

---

quote:

---

Is it possible that our longing for life after death is NOT MERELY longing for life longevity, but longing for union with the Source of Life, God?

---

quote:

---

There is no such thing as “union” with God without subjectivity. Love = subject + subject. If the equation is anything else, it is not love.

---

I beg to differ about the "union" thing. There IS a possibility of union with "God" without subjectivity. But there would be no COMM-union without subjectivity. (Is this your point, Al?) So, to posit eternal COMMUNION with God, it's necessary that subjective immorality be the case. Cool enough. But who's to say that God wouldn't be completely satisfied with COMMUNION with him in this life, and UNION (reconciliation?) with him in the next that doesn't allow for subjective immortality? Heck, what if God only needs objective immortality where his memories of us (and our communion with hims) satisfy him? Hmm...

So, I suppose that if you wanted to PRESUPPOSE that God wants us to NOT JUST PARTICIPATE IN God's truine love, but ETERNALLY RECIPROCATE it...then you could end up saying that subjective immortality is necessary. Fine. But that's an interesting supposition subject to the thoughts I made earlier.

Am I closer to you, Al?

quote:

---

Again, if God is love and God has created us with a plan for our ultimate "good," then I imagine this objective immortality could be true bliss in the way nirvana is understood to be bliss in eastern faiths.

---