LDS Apologetic Response to Atheistic Materialism

[Greg Smith]

I like this analogy.

But have you read the Jungle Book?

Right, or Tarzan. But, I think those things are overly afflicted with a Romantic, Rousseauian "everything is better in its natural state," sort of thinking. (We are perhaps less suscible to this given our views of a Darwinian world, etc.)

Under that view, our "natural" or "proper" state is one in a "state of nature," rather than misled or oppressed by priests, mountebanks, and aristocrats. So, in a way, even the JB advocates seeing who you "really are," deep down, and you'll be happiest there.

It's the old Delphic temple motto--"know thyself." Which again makes more sense, perhaps, in the LDS view, since we were something and had a relationship with God already. We need to remember and recall it, not create it de novo after being ex nihiloed into existence.

"Heavenly Father is only asking us to lose the old self in order to find the new and the real self. It is not a question of losing our identity but of finding our true identity!" - Neal A. Maxwell, Settle This In Your Hearts (Ensign Nov 1992): 65-.

GLS

[WalkerW]

A better analogy would be something like you're a feral child, raised by wolves or some such. You don't have language beyond a few inarticulate grunts and yelps. You spend your days naked, stalking prey, fighting over scraps, and sleeping huddled up to keep warm.

Then, one day, you meet an actual human. But, this human is clothed, is clean, is free from parasites, has technology, science, art, literature, etc. He takes you under his wing, and with a lot of work teachings you to speak and understand his language.

He then tells you that you're his son, and he's your father. You were lost, but now you're found. And, it's going to take a great deal more expense, time, and energy on his part, and a willing engagement on yours, to get you out of this feral state. You can, if you insist, go back to the wolf pack. But, what you really are--he tells you--is human. And, that has a destiny far more noble, and you will be far more happy, than what you were doing before--even though it had its simple pleasures and moments of excitement. By becoming human you also open yourself up to the risks of pride, jealousy, and the need to keep social and moral norms. But, in the long run, he promises, you will like it better.

In the LDS view, to discover God is to make contact with the sort of being we are in embryo. It gives a purpose because now we see who we are, and what we cost Him. As we trust Him, we get glimpses of it, and continue on.

===

So, the king just doesn't show up and make you a king. The ugly duckling learns that it is, in fact, a swan. And so, all the things it thought it wanted as a duck are less important, "once you know who you are."

GLS

Nice. This discovery to me answers, "Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? What is the purpose of this earthly existence?" David Bentley Hart's fantastic article "Christ and Nothing," First Things 136 (Oct. 2003) addresses the nihilism or worldview of nothingness we suffer from today. "Not only existentialists but many superficial "life counselors" suggest that we should construct our own "meaning" for life. But is such a self-constructed meaning really meaning at all? Or is meaning not, rather, something that can only be received from another intelligence? And why should anybody else pay even the slightest attention to somebody's self-constructed "meaning"?" (Daniel C. Peterson, "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism," FARMS Review 17:2 (2005).

[Nathair/|\]

Nice. This discovery to me answers, "Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? What is the purpose of this earthly existence?" David Bentley Hart's fantastic article "Christ and Nothing," First Things 136 (Oct. 2003) addresses the nihilism or worldview of nothingness we suffer from today. "Not only existentialists but many superficial "life counselors" suggest that we should construct our own "meaning" for life. But is such a self-constructed meaning really meaning at all? Or is meaning not, rather, something that can only be received from another intelligence? And why should anybody else pay even the slightest attention to somebody's self-constructed "meaning"?" (Daniel C. Peterson, "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism," FARMS Review 17:2 (2005).

From your link:

My friend and colleague William Hamblin and I have laughed about doing an autobiographical film entitled Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.)

I needed that laugh. I would totally go to that movie even if I couldn't get anyone to go with me. And I never go to the theater alone.

Yours under the oaks,

Nathair /|\

[elguanteloko]

A better analogy would be something like you're a feral child, raised by wolves or some such.

Are non-religious thinkers "raised by wolves"? How is this not a false analogy, Greg? Let me explain below...

You don't have language beyond a few inarticulate grunts and yelps. You spend your days naked, stalking prey, fighting over scraps, and sleeping huddled up to keep warm.

I don't see how this can be applied to reality at all. Living without God might not produce comparable results and living with God may end up not being that much different at all.

Then, one day, you meet an actual human. But, this human is clothed, is clean, is free from parasites, has technology, science, art, literature, etc. He takes you under his wing, and with a lot of work teachings you to speak and understand his language.

The point is, Greg, that this 'actual human' is not the only option. There are many other humans around (other ideas you can adopt and ways you can follow) that seem much better and much more moral than this "human" you present. Not only that, but you see this "human" doing things you consider despicable and worthy of your rejection.

He then tells you that you're his son, and he's your father. You were lost, but now you're found. And, it's going to take a great deal more expense, time, and energy on his part, and a willing engagement on yours, to get you out of this feral state. You can, if you insist, go back to the wolf pack. But, what you really are--he tells you--is human.

Same as above.

And, that has a destiny far more noble, and you will be far more happy, than what you were doing before--even though it had its simple pleasures and moments of excitement.

Kings may promise great things, too. Power does not mean right, Greg. The promise of greater happiness at the end while accepting an immoral system does not cut it for making it moral.

By becoming human you also open yourself up to the risks of pride, jealousy, and the need to keep social and moral norms. But, in the long run, he promises, you will like it better.

Same as above.

In the LDS view, to discover God is to make contact with the sort of being we are in embryo. It gives a purpose because now we see who we are, and what we cost Him. As we trust Him, we get glimpses of it, and continue on.

Nothing "gives" you a purpose but YOU adopt a purpose in a similar way that an "is" does not give you an "ought".

===

So, the king just doesn't show up and make you a king. The ugly duckling learns that it is, in fact, a swan. And so, all the things it thought it wanted as a duck are less important, "once you know who you are."

I never said the king shows up and makes you a king. I said he presents an option and you can either accept it or reject it. My point was, Greg, that you see this king as being immoral and not the best possible way to follow. Just because he promises you (and can actually give you) many great things does not make his ways any more moral. Might =/= right.

[elguanteloko]

Man! What an epic fail. I thought Dan had studied philosophy before.

First, the critics' basis for criticizing Mormonism on moral grounds is unclear, and its coherence needs to be demonstrated. "Rebellion cannot exist," observes Camus, "without the feeling that, somewhere and somehow, one is right."[48] But on what basis can a materialist, whose universe is exhausted by material particles and the void, claim that something is objectively wrong? Do right and wrong not become matters merely of personal preference and, perhaps, of power? Not only existentialists but many superficial "life counselors" suggest that we should construct our own "meaning" for life. But is such a self-constructed meaning really meaning at all? Or is meaning not, rather, something that can only be received from another intelligence? And why should anybody else pay even the slightest attention to somebody's self-constructed "meaning"?

Camus observes of the atheistic French revolutionaries of 1793 that, when they effectively guillotined God, "they deprived themselves forever of the right to outlaw crime or to censure malevolent instincts."[49] "From the moment that man submits God to moral judgment, he kills Him in his own heart. And then what is the basis of morality? God is denied in the name of justice, but can the idea of justice be understood without the idea of God?"[50] If those who deny any objective basis for morality nonetheless go on behaving morally and invoking morality, we can only be grateful that they have not pursued the implications of their position to their logical end and that they continue to live on borrowed moral capital. Of the nihilistic revolutionaries who are the subject of his brilliant meditation in The Rebel, Camus remarks that

All of them, decrying the human condition and its creator, have affirmed the solitude of man and the nonexistence of any kind of morality. But at the same time they have all tried to construct a purely terrestrial kingdom where their chosen principles will hold sway.

[51]

It is not surprising that, just prior to his tragic and early death in a 1960 automobile accident, Albert Camus was evidently giving serious consideration to being received into the Roman Catholic Church. He was, I am guessing, horrified by the revolutionary excesses of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and had come to suspect that only theism could provide an objective basis for moral judgments. It is precisely the same kind of reasoning that led the Anglo-American poet W. H. Auden to embrace Christianity: He found himself sitting in a movie hall in the late 1930s, in an area of New York City then heavily populated with German immigrants. As a newsreel played, depicting acts of Nazi barbarism toward European Jews, the audience around him erupted with cheers and surges of pleased laughter. Shaken by what he had witnessed, Auden realized that his secular worldview could not provide him with a firm moral ground from which to protest that Nazi brutality was objectively evil.

Camus and Auden may have been right. On the basis of what moral principles do secularizing critics pronounce the church wanting? How were those principles chosen, and why should anybody else defer to them? Even if one were to grant the factual claims on which they stake their moral judgments, it is not at all clear that those moral judgments are capable of bearing any objectively real weight.

(Daniel C. Peterson, "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism," FARMS Review 17:2 (2005).

[changed]

If you did not know the option then you would neither reject nor accept it since there is no "it" in the first place. If you know the option but it's impossible to reach then you could choose to follow or reject it but at the end you would not have it regardless. If you know the option and you can realize it plus you follow it, then at the end you may have it. Only in the first context does your statement makes sense.

there are plenty of options for which we know, but cannot accomplish without help.

Indeed you are portraying here God since he just tells you to do something, may provide the means, but he never tells you why it is good to go there.

He tells us why heaven is good -

(Old Testament | Isaiah 35:1 - 10)

1 THE wilderness and the asolitary place shall be bglad for cthem; and the ddesert shall rejoice, and eblossom as the rose.

2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of aLebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the bglory of the LORD, and the excellency of our God.

3

[Nofear]

Indeed you are portraying here God since he just tells you to do something, may provide the means, but he never tells you why it is good to go there.

As changed points out, God does indeed tell us why his way is good -- it leads to happiness. And what are we but that we might be happy?

For me, personally, I don't worship God because I believe in an a priori "good" or "moral"*. These things are merely descriptors of behaviors and principles that lead to the happiness of the beings who abide by them. And I am willing to submit both by reason and simple observation** that God knows what he is talking about.

* This does put me at odds with other Mormons but it is an idea that fits easily within the tent of Mormonism.

** Wherever the principles that God teaches mankind are practiced, that society is so much the happier and better off.

[mfbukowski]

Oxford psychologist and philosopher Daniel N. Robinson had this to say on James:

"The "brain sciences," in their merely correlative modes of inquiry, can offer no more than some connection in time between belief or sentiment and activity here or there within the nervous system. Together, "cognitive neuroscience," as with sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, serve up scripts and stories-call them objective accounts, if this is what they are-that never quite reach the level of lived life. Thus, one is tempted to say that religious experience "works" in just that way that conceptual analysis and reductive science do not.

Thanks for this. This precisely nails it imo.

It is in the very doing that one records faith in faith itself; belief in belief. It is in the very doing that one acknowledges that there is a point to life, even the life of the moment. It is a point within what is felt to be a larger and ever more inclusive point, belief in this being no less arresting than belief in the moment itself. This is how religious experience works. Where nothing like it is available to the actor, a radically different world of options arises, offering quite different ways of understanding oneself, one's life. As James understood these two worlds, no set of antagonistic beliefs could be more alive, less avoidable, less momentous." ("How Religious Experience "Works": Jamesian Pragmatism and Its Warrants," Review of Metaphysics 56:4, June 2003)

As does this! Thanks for the reference- hadn't seen this article.

[mfbukowski]

This is what I mean that no one really operates as if there is no purpose. Elsewhere, Feser writes:

The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth

[mfbukowski]

In short, I think the LDS view has everything the "conventional Christian" response has, plus revelation as a real option, and without a few major stumbling blocks for a modern/post-modern investigator. [unsurprisingly, since these aspects are those relying on Platonic et al philosophy, from which the world has moved on. So, it's hard to also swallow Platonic ideals, say, in the theology on offer when you've given up a Platonic universe in every other sense.]

GLS

What the world has yet to discover is that when God is seen to be a Man, humanism suddenly becomes theology. Nietzsche may have correctly indicated the death of the Platonic god, without having a clue that he was helping to explain a new paradigm for what God really is.

[mfbukowski]

Nice. This discovery to me answers, "Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? What is the purpose of this earthly existence?" David Bentley Hart's fantastic article "Christ and Nothing," First Things 136 (Oct. 2003) addresses the nihilism or worldview of nothingness we suffer from today. "Not only existentialists but many superficial "life counselors" suggest that we should construct our own "meaning" for life. But is such a self-constructed meaning really meaning at all? Or is meaning not, rather, something that can only be received from another intelligence? And why should anybody else pay even the slightest attention to somebody's self-constructed "meaning"?" (Daniel C. Peterson, "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism," FARMS Review 17:2 (2005).

Man, I love this thread!

Wittgenstein would say that meaning comes from a social context- which is another way I think of saying what is hinted at here.

We all as humans, some whom are Exalted, are together in a social context, called the "Patriarchal Order" and that is the context which gives all of our lives meaning.

[Greg Smith]

Are non-religious thinkers "raised by wolves"? How is this not a false analogy, Greg? Let me explain below...

"Parable" might be a better term than "analogy." I'm trying to convey something of the feeling and transformation. All analogies fail if pushed too far.

I don't see how this can be applied to reality at all. Living without God might not produce comparable results and living with God may end up not being that much different at all.

Indeed, it might not. Or, it might. In my experience, my little parable is a pale shadow of the experience. Only you can tell or decide. Part of it is about trust (on which see below).

The point is, Greg, that this 'actual human' is not the only option. There are many other humans around (other ideas you can adopt and ways you can follow) that seem much better and much more moral than this "human" you present. Not only that, but you see this "human" doing things you consider despicable and worthy of your rejection.

Obviously, I would never encourage someone to do something they felt morally wrong. And again, this is a parable. A hostile reading will probably simply miss my point. I'm not offering this as an argument for a syllogism, but as a way of expressing something.

Kings may promise great things, too. Power does not mean right, Greg. The promise of greater happiness at the end while accepting an immoral system does not cut it for making it moral.

I have said nothing about power.

Again, I would not encourage you to accept something immoral. Christianity generally (and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically) is about the renunciation of power (in the conventional sense). [Which is not to say that this has not been less than stellarly implemented throughout history. But, this is both to be expected in its worldview, and is addressed.]

Any legitimate power, in the LDS view, flows naturally and "without compulsion" (D&C 121)--rather like the power a trusted mentor's opinion has for someone. They have no dictatorial power, but by the nature of who and what they are, and the experiences we've had with them, they have great influence: unsought, uncompelled, but also unbreakable and undeniable. They probably would refuse some of the kinds of power over us we might offer them, and thus (ironically) increase their influence over us while leaving us freer. But, to seek to do this is to fail at it. It comes gently, "as the dews from heaven."

Nothing "gives" you a purpose but YOU adopt a purpose in a similar way that an "is" does not give you an "ought".

I'm speaking colloquially, of course. In a way we discover a purpose, or find a resonance in things that just fit or seem right, or transform everything for the good--again, the LDS view we are relearning or remembering, we are not starting from scratch. Waking from a dream, or recovering from amnesia, as it were.

But, only you can know.

I never said the king shows up and makes you a king. I said he presents an option and you can either accept it or reject it. My point was, Greg, that you see this king as being immoral and not the best possible way to follow. Just because he promises you (and can actually give you) many great things does not make his ways any more moral. Might =/= right.

I'm not sure where you get the idea about might and right. I've said nothing about that at all. (It is for this reason that I don't particularly care for the king analogy, since we don't really meet God as a king--we meet him weeping, carrying our griefs and sorrows, and on a lonely cross on a hill. Glamor and power and might are most definitely not on offer.)

God specifically will not compel either our obedience, love, or belief. This is, in fact, one of the appealing things--he could certainly do so, and might in one sense be "right" to do so, given how much better he is than me. But, he doesn't and is extraordinarily patient. "Easy to please, yet hard to satisfy," to paraphrase CS Lewis.

Faith involves trust--we all establish and maintain relationships built on trust. I married my wife without the guarantee that she would always treat me right, or without cheating on me, etc. My experience with her to that point led me to trust her. Trust is built bit by bit, drop by drop. And, it always involves an element of risk--there is no certainty, though when we trust someone enough we may speak and act in terms of certainty.

In a similar way, as we have experiences with God, we can grow to trust Him. This is particularly true as we encounter God through Jesus, who did not seek power, who suffered in our behalf even prior to our acceptance or acknowledgment of his action, etc.

If you are convinced that to follow God (in any sense, in any formalation) is to necessarily be called to immorality, I can only say that this has not been my experience, and as Teilhard de Chardin once observed, perhaps you have simply not heard of or encountered God in the right way yet.

Again, only you can know or decide that question.

GLS

[MistahStokes]

of all the things you can live for though, living for God, to become perfect - perfectly loving, perfect family, to become like God - that's the biggest, greatest, grandest, most glorious thing you could live for. God gives meaning a capital "M". All other meanings/purposes are temporary and shallow in comparison.

There is just nothing the LDS faith has to offer really, at best you can try to appeal to someone's sense of greed with talk of spiritual rewards.

See what you tried to do there?

The only way you can proscribe meaning to someone's life is to predicate it on what God can reward someone with and outside of just gross appeal to greed, there is no explanation as to how the Mormon Godhead can be this big ball of" meaning" that dispenses it to all other things.

[MistahStokes]

Let me quote Robert Nozick from his Philosophical Explanations

To experience God might leave one with the absolute conviction that his existence was the fountain of meaning, watering your own existence. I do not want to discount testimony reporting this, But even if we accepted it fully, it leaves unanswered the question of how meaning is possible. What is it about God, as usually conceived, in virtue of which he can ground meaning? How can there be a ball of meaning? Even if we are willing to treat the testimony in the way we treat accurate perceptual reports, there still remains the problem of understanding how meaning can be encountered in experience, of how there can be a stopping place for questions about meaning. How in the world (or out of it) can there be something whose nature contains meaning, something which just glows meaning?

These questions haven't been answered in this thread, finding God just creates an extra step and goes no where in terms of externally trumping Naturalism.

[SilverKnight]

The only way you can proscribe meaning to someone's life is to predicate it on what God can reward someone with and outside of just gross appeal to greed, there is no explanation as to how the Mormon Godhead can be this big ball of" meaning" that dispenses it to all other things.

Even if Mormonism is entirely false and God completely nonexistent, there is a litany of practical, pragmatic and measurable benefits to membership and belief in the LDS church (or any other religion).

[Greg Smith]

Even if Mormonism is entirely false and God completely nonexistent, there is a litany of practical, pragmatic and measurable benefits to membership and belief in the LDS church (or any other religion).

While this may be true, I don't think it a morally compelling case. Most people--especially agnostics and atheists--do not regard a useful falsehood as a good idea (and I would agree with them).

CS Lewis once remarked that the key question is not, "What is Christianity good for?" but "Is Christianity true?"

In fact, there is a danger in assuming some type of instrumental good out of faith--as Thomas Merton noted:

If we are not humble, we tend to demand that faith must also bring with it good health, peace of mind, good luck, success in business, popularity, world peace, and every other good thing we can imagine. And it is true that God can give us all these good things if He wants to. But they are of no importance compared to faith, which is essential. If we insist on other things as the price of our believing, we tend by that very fact to undermine our own belief. I do not think it would be an act of mercy on God's part simply to let us get away with this!

This can risk a life predicated on some type of divine bribery. We do not (or ought not to) love God because of what He can do for us. We love Him because he loves us.

Let me quote Robert Nozick from his Philosophical Explanations [snip]

These questions haven't been answered in this thread, finding God just creates an extra step and goes no where in terms of externally trumping Naturalism.

I'm not sure exactly what you (or Nozick) are intending by the term "meaning." What does it consist of? Is it possible in any context? To me, a phrase like "great big ball of meaning" [a lovely phrase, BTW!] feels like I'm speaking past the person....I feel like I've totally missed the question.

[MistahStokes]

Hi Greg,

I'm not sure exactly what you (or Nozick) are intending by the term "meaning." What does it consist of? Is it possible in any context? To me, a phrase like "great big ball of meaning" [a lovely phrase, BTW!] feels like I'm speaking past the person....I feel like I've totally missed the question.

Good questions. I'm speaking about the purposes people give their lives like we give our actions. Why are you running? Because it's healthy activity for me. It's a lot like Teleology.

WalkerW quoted one of Dan Peterson's essays, so I'd like to revisit that:

Not only existentialists but many superficial "life counselors" suggest that we should construct our own "meaning" for life. But is such a self-constructed meaning really meaning at all? Or is meaning not, rather, something that can only be received from another intelligence? And why should anybody else pay even the slightest attention to somebody's self-constructed "meaning"?"Or is meaning not, rather, something that can only be received from another intelligence? And why should anybody else pay even the slightest attention to somebody's self-constructed "meaning"?

Implicit in Dan's observation in that essay is that without God, we are just reduced to hopeless nihilism, something WalkerW thinks we as a whole suffer from today [ ! ], but I just don't see how introducing God into the picture does anything to solve this nihilism (if it even exists, which I would dispute). If we imagine the Heavenly Father facing our own problems about the meaningfulness of his existence, it forces us to make some interesting observations about how meaning attaches to his purpose.

'If meaning can only be received from another intelligence...' as Dan offers up, that seems to suggest that we humans find meaning in our lives via the Heavenly Father's plan for us (the restored Gospel) and somehow fitting into The Father's grand designs, but I think this sets up a problem. This would be an example of both Man and God shoring up each other's meaningfulness, I obtain exaltation and The Father gets further glory. If Man and God can do that, why can't two persons such a man and wife do that for each other? And can there even be a purpose who's sole goal is to impart meaning on to something? I don't think so, the plan or purpose must have an independent purpose and meaning itself.

I remember I had one missionary (a teenage convert) tell me that what got him so enamored with Joseph Smith and the Restored Gospel is that through scriptures we learned where we came from (as spirit children), why we are here (Spiritual beings having an earthly experience), and where we are going (one of the three kingdoms,etc). He went on to explain that is why the Restored Gospel is so important, it helps us learn to become like God through baby steps from baptisms, endowments, sealings, and so forth and with each step along the way we gain a clearer picture of what God's plans are for us and how to achieve them. I think that is a fine thought, but it doesn't really give us an answer about what gives our life meaning. "The purpose of my life is to slowly discover the purpose of my life" is what the good hearted missionary's thoughts could be reduced to.

So when I ask if God is just like a big ball of Meaning, I'm asking if God himself grounds all meaning, that God's existence is somehow tautologically meaningful? I think it's tempting to go that route, but it only creates more questions and doesn't really answer anything that was brought up in this thread.

[MistahStokes]

Since we are on your essay Dan, can you explain to me why this isn't a Quote Mine from Camus?

"From the moment that man submits God to moral judgment, he kills Him in his own heart. And then what is the basis of morality? God is denied in the name of justice, but can the idea of justice be understood without the idea of God?' [50] If those who deny any objective basis for morality nonetheless go on behaving morally and invoking morality, we can only be grateful that they have not pursued the implications of their position to their logical end and that they continue to live on borrowed moral capital.

[50] being this....

I don't think it was very responsible to not quote the entire paragraph, explain it's relation to the essay or even talk about how Camus resolved the catchy lead in question.

[Greg Smith]

Hi Greg,

Good questions. I'm speaking about the purposes people give their lives like we give our actions. Why are you running? Because it's healthy activity for me. It's a lot like Teleology.

Which of course, though, begs that we ask, "But why do you want to be healthy?" To what end?

'If meaning can only be received from another intelligence...' as Dan offers up, that seems to suggest that we humans find meaning in our lives via the Heavenly Father's plan for us (the restored Gospel) and somehow fitting into The Father's grand designs, but I think this sets up a problem. This would be an example of both Man and God shoring up each other's meaningfulness, I obtain exaltation and The Father gets further glory. If Man and God can do that, why can't two persons such a man and wife do that for each other? And can there even be a purpose who's sole goal is to impart meaning on to something? I don't think so, the plan or purpose must have an independent purpose and meaning itself....So when I ask if God is just like a big ball of Meaning, I'm asking if God himself grounds all meaning, that God's existence is somehow tautologically meaningful? I think it's tempting to go that route, but it only creates more questions and doesn't really answer anything that was brought up in this thread.

Well, I would start by saying that a belief in God (or at least the Christian version, and certainly the LDS-Christian version) implies both continuity with one's past existence and (importantly for our purposes here) continued continuity after death.

Otherwise, we have to address the fact that no one maximizes their potential in life, few people come even close, and a host (even the vast majority) are victims of staggering injustice, possibilities cut short, and apparently random, terrible suffering. So, while I might self-actualize quite nicely, or quite contentedly in life, one might think that part of the Good is being intimately involved and concerned for other people. Yet, the majority of those people I cannot help, or can help only marginally. Thus, when people speak of "purpose," they are sometime referring to the fact that disappointments, griefs, sorrow, and evil do not have the final victory. There is justice. Hitler did not win against 6 million Jews. Slaves' existence is not defined by their masters. And so on.

LDS theology certainly handles this much more robustly than most of creedal Christianity, especially when compared to some Calvinist variants--in which people are predestined at creation to salvation or damnation, and nothing they or anyone can do (save God, who has already decided against them) can affect this. The LDS idea that everyone, everywhere gets a fair chance to accept a saving relationship and ordinances with God is enormously powerful. Many modern Christians are starting to struggle with these ideas; no one talks about infant damnation very loudly anymore, thank goodness. But, these concepts have been front and centre with the LDS from a very early period, and integrate beautifully into the over-all theology. (Indeed, much of the theology makes no sense without them.)

===

Can a husband and wife do this kind of "meaning"? Yes, to a degree--in fact, LDS theology argues precisely that one can't do it alone. And, indeed, our conventional day-to-day experience seems to suggest that generally, we are happiest when we have connections, bonds, and intimacy with other people. And, the less needy, manipulative, or passive-aggressive such bonds, the happier we are. If we meet people who don't like these things, who can't engage in intimacy, who can't empathize with other people, who can't put themselves in another's head or shoes--we pity them, or we consider them defective in some way: autistic, sociopathic, and the like. We don't just say, "Well, he seems to be following his bliss by being a sociopathic loner. Good for him."

LDS theology seems to me to be at least partly about creating links and bonds between intelligent free agents--God and man, man and woman, humans and other humans. In a sense, I think you are right--we all give each other meaning--or, if you prefer, we all find (or will find) our existence more rich, more meaningful, and more complete the wider such indwelling love and relationships stretch. Why does one need more than that?

What was "the purpose" of my marriage? It's not like I sat down and wrote out a mission statement. I couldn't forsee how it would all work out, or even if it would work out. Yet, I would not say that my marriage was purposeless. Rather, I simply knew or realized that my life (whatever it turned out to be) would be infinitely better with my wife along and with me than it would without her. So, this idea of "purpose" may be a bit misguided, if one thinks of "goal to attain."

One runs "so I can be healthy." But why be healthy? There are some things (Plato and successors would say the most important things) are simply Good for their own sake: I run because I like to run. I feel better as a runner than not as a runner. I am better.

I want to be healthy because it is better than not being healthy. I want to be married because it is better than not being married. How do I know? Because I know myself with and without it. What other standard could there be? Ought I to like marriage because God said so? Or because my wife said so? That would be a strange hell. I simply reflect in myself and it is clear which is the better state. Sort of a "cogito ergo sum" thing. One can't convey it to another, but one also can't doubt it in oneself without a particular kind of madness.

Marriage, health, God--all these are Goods in themselves, first order Goods, that require no justification or instrumental purpose. Why do I want to live with God? Well, quite simply, I want to go Home. Going home is simply better. What will I do there? I don't know, really--something good and grand, I expect. How could it be otherwise when with Him? We have a relationship. That's all that matters.

When I go out with my wife, we don't have to go do something specific. Just whatever it is, I'm happy to just do it with her. I don't need another excuse or reason; indeed, it might be offensive to her, or speak less of her, if I needed "a purpose" to go with her other than that I love her and am simply better with her.

It is not for nothing that many religious mystics see the relationship with God in romantic or marital terms.

GLS

[WalkerW]

Implicit in Dan's observation in that essay is that without God, we are just reduced to hopeless nihilism, something WalkerW thinks we as a whole suffer from today [ ! ], but I just don't see how introducing God into the picture does anything to solve this nihilism (if it even exists, which I would dispute).

To clarify: I didn't say we as a whole suffer from nihilism. I just said we suffer from it. And I personally don't think anyone adheres to nihilism (I don't think most people really reflect, ponder, and think about the meaning of life, existence, and their own worldviews). Some may give lip service to nihilism, but ultimately their actions betray their words. I said something similar to this before:

The concept of proper function (something I think fits into what you call the "inter-dependency to life") indicates to me that there is purpose, order, and meaning. We all operate as if there is purpose, order, and meaning. I don't think it is a stretch to say, based on everyday conscious experience, that perhaps there is purpose, order, and meaning. To say there is no purpose, order, and meaning is a philosophy that no one actually lives by. It is lip-service only.

Nonetheless, what Hart seems to be saying is that if we took some of the modern trains of thought to their logical ends, we end up with nihilism. My comment was related to Hart's article that I cited. He has similar things to say in Atheist Delusions (Yale University Press: 2009).

[WalkerW]

Which of course, though, begs that we ask, "But why do you want to be healthy?" To what end?

Well, I would start by saying that a belief in God (or at least the Christian version, and certainly the LDS-Christian version) implies both continuity with one's past existence and (importantly for our purposes here) continued continuity after death.

Otherwise, we have to address the fact that no one maximizes their potential in life, few people come even close, and a host (even the vast majority) are victims of staggering injustice, possibilities cut short, and apparently random, terrible suffering. So, while I might self-actualize quite nicely, or quite contentedly in life, one might think that part of the Good is being intimately involved and concerned for other people. Yet, the majority of those people I cannot help, or can help only marginally. Thus, when people speak of "purpose," they are sometime referring to the fact that disappointments, griefs, sorrow, and evil do not have the final victory. There is justice. Hitler did not win against 6 million Jews. Slaves' existence is not defined by their masters. And so on.

LDS theology certainly handles this much more robustly than most of creedal Christianity, especially when compared to some Calvinist variants--in which people are predestined at creation to salvation or damnation, and nothing they or anyone can do (save God, who has already decided against them) can affect this. The LDS idea that everyone, everywhere gets a fair chance to accept a saving relationship and ordinances with God is enormously powerful. Many modern Christians are starting to struggle with these ideas; no one talks about infant damnation very loudly anymore, thank goodness. But, these concepts have been front and centre with the LDS from a very early period, and integrate beautifully into the over-all theology. (Indeed, much of the theology makes no sense without them.)

===

Can a husband and wife do this kind of "meaning"? Yes, to a degree--in fact, LDS theology argues precisely that one can't do it alone. And, indeed, our conventional day-to-day experience seems to suggest that generally, we are happiest when we have connections, bonds, and intimacy with other people. And, the less needy, manipulative, or passive-aggressive such bonds, the happier we are. If we meet people who don't like these things, who can't engage in intimacy, who can't empathize with other people, who can't put themselves in another's head or shoes--we pity them, or we consider them defective in some way: autistic, sociopathic, and the like. We don't just say, "Well, he seems to be following his bliss by being a sociopathic loner. Good for him."

LDS theology seems to me to be at least partly about creating links and bonds between intelligent free agents--God and man, man and woman, humans and other humans. In a sense, I think you are right--we all give each other meaning--or, if you prefer, we all find (or will find) our existence more rich, more meaningful, and more complete the wider such indwelling love and relationships stretch. Why does one need more than that?

What was "the purpose" of my marriage? It's not like I sat down and wrote out a mission statement. I couldn't forsee how it would all work out, or even if it would work out. Yet, I would not say that my marriage was purposeless. Rather, I simply knew or realized that my life (whatever it turned out to be) would be infinitely better with my wife along and with me than it would without her. So, this idea of "purpose" may be a bit misguided, if one thinks of "goal to attain."

One runs "so I can be healthy." But why be healthy? There are some things (Plato and successors would say the most important things) are simply Good for their own sake: I run because I like to run. I feel better as a runner than not as a runner. I am better.

I want to be healthy because it is better than not being healthy. I want to be married because it is better than not being married. How do I know? Because I know myself with and without it. What other standard could there be? Ought I to like marriage because God said so? Or because my wife said so? That would be a strange hell. I simply reflect in myself and it is clear which is the better state. Sort of a "cogito ergo sum" thing. One can't convey it to another, but one also can't doubt it in oneself without a particular kind of madness.

Marriage, health, God--all these are Goods in themselves, first order Goods, that require no justification or instrumental purpose. Why do I want to live with God? Well, quite simply, I want to go Home. Going home is simply better. What will I do there? I don't know, really--something good and grand, I expect. How could it be otherwise when with Him? We have a relationship. That's all that matters.

When I go out with my wife, we don't have to go do something specific. Just whatever it is, I'm happy to just do it with her. I don't need another excuse or reason; indeed, it might be offensive to her, or speak less of her, if I needed "a purpose" to go with her other than that I love her and am simply better with her.

It is not for nothing that many religious mystics see the relationship with God in romantic or marital terms.

GLS

This reminds me of something philosopher Roger Scruton said in regards to beauty and aesthetics:

"...if you consider only utility, the things you build will soon be useless. This building is boarded up because nobody has a use for it. Nobody has a use for it because nobody wants to be in it. Nobody wants to be in it because the thing is so damned ugly."

Form and function should be united.

[Tarski]

"The irony is that the very practice of science itself, which involves the formulation of hypotheses, the weighing of evidence, the invention of technical concepts and vocabularies, the construction of chains of reasoning, and so forth

[changed]

See what you tried to do there?

The only way you can proscribe meaning to someone's life is to predicate it on what God can reward someone with and outside of just gross appeal to greed, there is no explanation as to how the Mormon Godhead can be this big ball of" meaning" that dispenses it to all other things.

It's not about greed, it's about living for something more than yourself, living for something bigger than self-interest. The whole point of the highest glory is not golden streets, it's about being with your family, it's about having children, it's about seeing one another face to face...

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 13:12)

12 For now we see through a glass, bdarkly; but then face to face

The entire reason that sin is sin - is that sin keeps people from being close to one another. Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, be loyal - it's all about how we're supposed to treat one another, because that is what heaven is all about - it's a place where we don't have to hide from anyone or anything, where we can all see one another face to face -

(New Testament | Matthew 6:19 - 21)

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves bbreak through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

the treasures of heaven are not that of greed - the treasures of heaven are one another, friends, family, people - that is what the treasure is - there is no greater treasure, nothing greater to live for.

[Greg Smith]

This reminds me of something philosopher Roger Scruton said in regards to beauty and aesthetics:

"...if you consider only utility, the things you build will soon be useless. This building is boarded up because nobody has a use for it. Nobody has a use for it because nobody wants to be in it. Nobody wants to be in it because the thing is so damned ugly."

Form and function should be united.

Yeah, just think Stalinist architecture (*shudder*).

GLS

[cksalmon]

Yeah, just think Stalinist architecture (*shudder*).

GLS

Hard to know if you're being sincere or facetious, here, Greg.

...

I appreciate the responses thus far and may make some comments at some point, but you're doing a better job without me, I'm pretty sure.