Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Can you do me a favor, then? Can you please ask God how to unify quantum and classic/relative physics? You seem to have the easiest approach... you don't have to bother reading what others have thought, you don't have to bother thinking things through yourself, you just ask God and he tells you. Do you think he will tell you how to solve perhaps the biggest problem in contemporary physics? You'd be doing science an incredible favor. I didn't say I don't think things through myself, unless you mean all by myself. I think things through with God as we discuss things together. Before I can tackle your request I'll have to study up on the definition of some of those words or terms you are using. I might know what you're taking about but I don't recognize that yet because I don't use those words when I am describing reality. Quantum and classic/relative physics? I already have a Honey-do list and this isn't as important as most of those things or some of the other things I would like to accomplish but if I ever get around to it then I will share what I have found out. 8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Also, I'm curious how you approach what the LDS apostles say. Do you ignore them, too, since you can go straight to God? Do you bother to listen to general conference? It's a tradition that my wife and I enjoy, listening to them and watching them, together. It's not usually something I don't already know but it's still good to hear it again and to know that other people know what we know, too. I also just like sitting on our leather electronically controlled reclining loveseat with my wife while watching something good on our big screen TV which we use as a computer monitor. Very relaxing and a nice way to rest with my most favorite person ever. 8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Do you really think you can skip over studying, reading, and thinking, and just get the answer on any subject straight from God? If so, that's what I'm calling ridiculous. Studying and thinking are things I do with God on a regular basis. I never suggested otherwise. Reading, not so much, preferring instead to just think and study things out in my mind while communing with God, even while talking with other people, such as my wife, or you, or whoever else I might be having a conversation with. My wife and I do still read scripture together, though, mainly just so we can be on the same page and on the same thoughts together. We're not very good at communicating through telepathy yet, as we do with our Father, but we're still working on it.
Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Is this what you do when your car breaks down? Pray to God and fix it with His help, ignoring all manuals and expert advice from mechanics? I do what I know how to do when it comes to fixing my car and truck and when I get into something I don't know how to fix I watch a youtube video with God so we can work on it together. Are you trying to think of something I might do without communing with God about it? Good luck with that. I can't think of anything I try to do without his help.
MiserereNobis Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 45 minutes ago, Ahab said: I know how to commune with God and can get any good idea from him, directly, without having to read about what other men have thought or written for others to read. This is what I am saying is false. You contradict this statement in your responses to me: 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: Before I can tackle your request I'll have to study up on the definition of some of those words or terms you are using. I might know what you're taking about but I don't recognize that yet because I don't use those words when I am describing reality. Quantum and classic/relative physics? I already have a Honey-do list and this isn't as important as most of those things or some of the other things I would like to accomplish but if I ever get around to it then I will share what I have found out. I guess you'll have to do some reading before you tackle my request. Can't you just ask God without the reading? That's what you say you do in your first quote? By the way, if you solve this problem in physics you will be as famous as Albert Einstein. You will win the Nobel prize. Think of all the good you could do with that fame and money. You could spread the message of the LDS church far and wide. You could explain how everyone should just ask God like you did to solve the problem. You could use those millions of dollars in award money to give to the LDS church, to help charity, to do good. I think you should put this on your Honey-do list, perhaps even above cleaning out the garage or picking up the dog poop. 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: I do what I know how to do when it comes to fixing my car and truck and when I get into something I don't know how to fix I watch a youtube video with God so we can work on it together. Wait, you won't read because there is no need to know what other men have though or written because you can just get it directly from God (that's your first quoted post in my reply here) but you will watch a youtube video..? Is youtube a higher form of information receiving than reading a book? And, why even watch youtube? You have already claimed that you can get the idea directly from God without a middleman. Why use youtube as the middleman? 12 minutes ago, Ahab said: Are you trying to think of something I might do without communing with God about it? Good luck with that. I can't think of anything I try to do without his help. No, I'm not doing that at all. We all should commune with God all the time; we should always have the name of Jesus on our lips and in our hearts. The purpose of Benedictine monasticism is to spend an entire life in work and prayer, intertwined and indistinguishable. What I'm going after is your claim that you don't need to read or study what other people have said. That you just go directly to God without reading. It's the first quote of yours in this reply. 1
Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: This is what I am saying is false. You contradict this statement in your responses to me: I guess you'll have to do some reading before you tackle my request. Can't you just ask God without the reading? That's what you say you do in your first quote? I can and have asked him and maybe God will tell me, that's up to him. I'm just saying it's possible without having to read other people's comments. It's not as if I have no choice but to read what others think. God can give me ideas directly about anything. And by studying I'm referring to studying things out in my mind, which I can do without reading anything. I study ideas out in my mind as I am praying with God, for example. Studying does not require reading. Quote By the way, if you solve this problem in physics you will be as famous as Albert Einstein. You will win the Nobel prize. Think of all the good you could do with that fame and money. You could spread the message of the LDS church far and wide. You could explain how everyone should just ask God like you did to solve the problem. You could use those millions of dollars in award money to give to the LDS church, to help charity, to do good. I think you should put this on your Honey-do list, perhaps even above cleaning out the garage or picking up the dog poop. Even if I had the answer, there is no guarantee other people would believe me. Or at least not in my mortal lifetime. That has happened with some ideas, you know. Sometimes it takes a while for people to catch on to the right idea, even after it has been given in plain speech. Quote Wait, you won't read because there is no need to know what other men have though or written because you can just get it directly from God (that's your first quoted post in my reply here) but you will watch a youtube video..? Is youtube a higher form of information receiving than reading a book? And, why even watch youtube? You have already claimed that you can get the idea directly from God without a middleman. Why use youtube as the middleman? I can learn what men think and I can also learn what God thinks and knows is true. I have both options. I'd just rather learn from God than having to go through a middleman. And sometimes I do. No reading or youtube video or anything other than God's revelation to me. Quote No, I'm not doing that at all. We all should commune with God all the time; we should always have the name of Jesus on our lips and in our hearts. The purpose of Benedictine monasticism is to spend an entire life in work and prayer, intertwined and indistinguishable. What I'm going after is your claim that you don't need to read or study what other people have said. That you just go directly to God without reading. It's the first quote of yours in this reply. I don't need to. God can give me ideas directly without me having to read the thoughts of other men first. But I can still read men's thoughts if I want to. Or watch videos, or whatever, if I want to. But I don't need to Nobody does It's just an option, if people want to. On the other hand, I would say that everyone needs God's help to find out what is true. What men say, in and of itself, is not enough to convince anyone on the truth of anything. Edited February 4, 2020 by Ahab
TOmNossor Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) On 1/30/2020 at 6:12 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said: Can you explain what you mean by Nihilism? I mean with no gods out there, it’s clear that the universe/gods provides no meaning for life. Why does it logically follow that we must view our lives as meaningless. That is, why should I care that I don’t derive my meaning from external sources. Isn’t the meaning I find internally just as valid? Hello SeekingUnderstanding and @Meadowchik, I have read most of this thread including a lot of posts from Meadowchik and you. I also had the opportunity to ask a philosophy professor his thoughts on Atheism leading to Nihilism. Here is some of this. I would believe (and perhaps it is true) that my part (in quotes “”) was not quite so simplistic as I will present it; but this will give the gist of what I learned anyway. We started with Nihilism definition to which I offered “lack of purpose.” That seemed acceptable. Then it went downhill from there. Why do atheists lack purpose? “Well, because the scientific naturalism that I see within them means that they are a product of evolution and chance. There isn’t a guiding principle for their lives.” Hmm! So is it necessary that their purpose come externally for them to have a purpose? (you said this too) “Well … it would seem somewhat arbitrary if their purpose was something they defined for themselves. How could there be a valuable purpose when random processes produced folks who then choose their own purpose. And the purposes conflict one with another.” OK. Well, does a tree have a purpose? How about a chair? Or that dog with the “Service Dog Vest” surely he has a purpose. “But the chair, generally; the tree mostly; and the dog to some extent don’t have free will to carry out a purpose. I am not thinking of purpose quite like that when I think of the ‘no purpose’ in nihilism.” OK. Haven’t you just contradicted yourself in that you speak of having an external (God) source for purpose and then you speak of having a will as necessary for having a purpose? To which I should have responded that, “there is value in the universalness of the divinely planned purpose AND in the ability to accept such a purpose by the possessor of free will.” But I mostly just pondered the path I had walked. … … It seems to me that when defining nihilism as “lack of purpose” there are many “sources” of purpose for the Atheist. The "will to kindness" Meadowchik offered was one of the more beautiful ways of defining a purpose and is less assailable then I might like (by “like” I mean that you should come to walk with God and me, but I don’t see as great of a response that leads to this). I have not left behind the whole, “here because of random connections and dead in 100 years” as a reason to feel purposelessness; but I can acknowledge some complexity here. I hope I have not offended and I still invite the embracing of The God who did design our purpose; but it is good there is less reason for the atheist to believe we have no purpose than I had original supposed. I will surely read any responses, but may fail to find time to respond to responses. Charity, TOm Edited February 4, 2020 by TOmNossor 2
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, TOmNossor said: We started with Nihilism definition to which I offered “lack of purpose.” That seemed acceptable. Then it went downhill from there. Why do atheists lack purpose? “Well, because the scientific naturalism that I see within them means that they are a product of evolution and chance. There isn’t a guiding principle for their lives.” … It seems to me that when defining nihilism as “lack of purpose” there are many “sources” of purpose for the Atheist. The "will to kindness" Meadowchik offered was one of the more beautiful ways of defining a purpose and is less assailable then I might like (by “like” I mean that you should come to walk with God and me, but I don’t see as great of a response that leads to this). Dennis Prager has recently written on "meaning" and how it is playing out these days: The Question That Explains Almost Everything Some excerpts: Quote {T}he most important question to ask is "What in life gives you the most meaning?" The answer does not explain everything, of course, but it explains the human condition better than any other question. The reason is this: After food, the greatest human need and human desire is meaning. Even more so than the ability to reason or even to speak, this is the great divide between human and animal. We share all other needs with the higher animal species and share many needs with some of the lower animal species. Like them, we need food, shelter and companionship. But, while human beings seek and need meaning more than anything except food (and companionship -- but for human beings, companionship usually provides some meaning, and sometimes enough), no animal needs or seeks meaning. As an aside, this is one of the reasons I believe in God, the Creator. There is no evolutionary explanation for the need for meaning. Meaning is not a biological need. Given its unique importance, that is why what gives us meaning must be deemed the most important question. This reflects my sentiments. This is why I find atheism so unattractive. As I see it, in the end, it denies or trivializes "meaning" in life. Prager continues: Quote The problem, however, is that just as the need for food has no inherent moral quality, the need for meaning has no inherent moral quality. Meaning can be found in evil just as it can be found in good. Nazism provided millions of Germans with as much meaning as helping the dying in Calcutta provided Mother Teresa. Slaughtering infidels gives radical Islamic terrorists as much meaning as feeding the poor gives those who work for the Salvation Army. Killing the "Christ-killer" Jews gave some medieval Christians as much meaning as saving Jews gave some European Christians during the Holocaust. Yep. "Meaning" needs to be tethered to morality. Atheism provides neither. Quote For most Americans until the last generation, the need for meaning was filled by family, religion, community and patriotism (i.e., love of America and belief in America as Abraham Lincoln put it: as "the last best hope of earth." All, or nearly all, of those sources of meaning are being lost. In fact, the present generation of Americans has few or none of those meaning providers. As regards family, Americans are marrying at a later age than ever before. Fewer Americans are marrying than ever before. And fewer are having children than ever before. With regard to religion, more than a third of millennials -- by far the largest percentage of any generation in American history -- do not identify with any religion. As for community, a vast number of Americans -- of every age -- have lost ties to any community. This is a major reason for the epidemic of loneliness that afflicts so many Americans (and so many others) at the present time. For example, The New York Times reported in 2018 that in Britain, "more than nine million people in the country often or always feel lonely, according to a 2017 report published by the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness." Then-Prime Minister Theresa May actually appointed a minister of loneliness. I don't see things as bleakly as Prager does, but I share his overarching concern for diminishing focus on and strength in family, religion, and community. At that point Prager goes into secular/political discussion, but concludes with a renewed emphasis on "traditional meaning givers" (family, religion, community and patriotism). I think he's right. These "meaning givers" are not valid because they are "traditional." They are traditional because they are valid. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97 2
Meadowchik Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 54 minutes ago, smac97 said: Dennis Prager has recently written on "meaning" and how it is playing out these days: The Question That Explains Almost Everything Some excerpts: This reflects my sentiments. This is why I find atheism so unattractive. As I see it, in the end, it denies or trivializes "meaning" in life. Prager continues: Yep. "Meaning" needs to be tethered to morality. Atheism provides neither. I don't see thins as bleakly as Prager does, but I share his overarching concern for diminishing focus on and strength in family, religion, and community. At that point Prager goes into secular/political discussion, but concludes with a renewed emphasis on "traditional meaning givers" (family, religion, community and patriotism). I think he's right. These "meaning givers" are not valid because they are "traditional." They are traditional because they are valid. Thanks, -Smac How does the lack of a belief in God trivialize meaning? One can adopt meaning without a belief in God. Why couldn't meaning without theism be tethered to morality? (And did you purposely use examples of theistic people finding meaning in immoral things??) Meaning without theism can be moral. Atheism does not only have evolution to fall back on. Evolution can be consistent with theism too, one can look to it to see some of the "how" life came about but it need not be the only source of meaning. Speaking of tradition, I think it is a healthy exercise to contemplate the anthropological roots of theism. I think that, whether God exists or not, the idea of God was a way for human beings to talk about and understand the world. For a very long time, the relationship with God was also the key to science, art, and government. Over time that has changed, and people have found ways to pursue science, government and human expression independent of theism, but God still remains a way to describe Answers. God is a way for an individual to address their deepest desires and hopes to the audience of a better Mind and Heart who knows and sees the individual. And therefore people can utlimately cultivate the best within themselves by having this conversation over and over and over their whole lives. Likewise, people can do this collectively and can, by conversing as if to a better Mind and Heart who knows and sees them all, they cultivate better relationships with one another. I think that this is what is at the core of benefit from religion in places like America. But I suspect it's also at the core of highly communal atheist societies like China, where the religious are in the minority and do not enjoy better mental health benefits compared to the religious in America. As far as I know studies suggest that it is meaning whether theistic or atheistic that contributes to those benefits. 1
MiserereNobis Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 51 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Meaning" needs to be tethered to morality. Atheism provides neither My two previous points concerning this claim have yet to be fully addressed 1) Existentialism is 99% atheistic (and the 1% theistic existentialism doesn't really fit into traditional Christianity). Existentialism, however, explicitly rejects the idea that atheism = nihilism, that atheism does not provide meaning or morality. Interestingly enough, some existentialists actually argue that existentialism provides greater morality than theism. The argument is that 100% freedom (no predetermined meaning means that you have the freedom to choose) also entails 100% responsibility, because it is all on you. Theism (and other systems of meaning) actually remove responsibility because you abdicate your personal choice to the choice of the system. Interesting thoughts. In any case, the arguments of the existentialists have to be dealt with before we posit that atheism provides no meaning or morality. It cannot be stated axiomatically in the face of an entire philosophical system/movement that rejects it. 2) Non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, do not deny the existence of gods but change the definition of a god to something that is neither absolute (they will be reincarnated just like any other life form) nor relevant to the meaning of life. In Buddhism, the central point is to end delusion in order to end the cycle of death and rebirth and suffering. The gods are just as deluded as humans, or even more so because they have less suffering and are thus are more ignorant about their own position. If the gods are irrelevant (and are not immortal and absolute), then meaning and morality are not derived from the gods. Meaning and morality are derived from the natural truths of the universe, which the Buddha discovered and shared. The path to the end of suffering that the Buddha realized was not created by the gods, not revealed by the gods, but is inherent in the mind and universe and is accessible to humans. How is this reconciled with the idea that without a god there is no meaning or morality? Are you prepared to say that Buddhists have no meaning or morality, that they are nihilists? This brings up an interesting question related to LDS cosmology, at least in my limited understanding: where does meaning and morality come from for the LDS? It can't be from God, can it, since God was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, who also was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, all the way back eternally? If God were to cease being a God if he broke the laws of justice and/or mercy (if that's the correct quote from the Book of Mormon..?), then the laws of morality are greater than God and separate from him. This seems to be connected to Buddhism: the laws of morality are not derived from God, but from the laws of the universe itself. Therefore, meaning doesn't come from God but from the universe. Perhaps God is simply the best moral advisor, like the Buddha? 2
Calm Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: As I see it, in the end, it denies or trivializes "meaning" in life. I know someone, LDS convert****, who feels this way about God. The fact that God exists trivializes his own life into meaninglessness. Anything notable to accomplish, God already has. At best we are playing catch-up, at worst wasting our time as God will just give us everything we lack anyway if we play by his rules. He could bring about world peace and that is meaningless because God could have done so sooner and better if he tried. Our lives are therefore meaningless except as demonstrations of God’s glory. Our individuality has no value. Pack up and travel the universe, God had been there already. Cure all illness, advance knowledge to its ultimate limits if any, God has already done it. Any individual outside of God is therefore not necessary as God can always find someone else and guide him to do what needs be done. _______ Theism isn’t inherently meaningful, atheism isn’t inherently meaningless. All depends on how one defines meaning and the assumptions one brings to the issue. ****His family background is rather messed up. I think finding meaning in life is much more attached to how one relates to others in one’s life than anything else. It could be that depression and despair lead to a sense of meaningless and that leads to the type of atheism or theism that sees existence as meaningless rather than the opposite. Edited February 4, 2020 by Calm 3
Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 32 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: This brings up an interesting question related to LDS cosmology, at least in my limited understanding: where does meaning and morality come from for the LDS? It can't be from God, can it, since God was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, who also was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, all the way back eternally? If God were to cease being a God if he broke the laws of justice and/or mercy (if that's the correct quote from the Book of Mormon..?), then the laws of morality are greater than God and separate from him. This seems to be connected to Buddhism: the laws of morality are not derived from God, but from the laws of the universe itself. Therefore, meaning doesn't come from God but from the universe. Perhaps God is simply the best moral advisor, like the Buddha? That is a good way to look at it. God, our Father in heaven, is our best moral advisor. And Jesus Christ is now as good as he is. They were both educated by their parents (who were educated by their parents, who were educated by their parents, etc forever back in history with there never being any "first" parents, only parents of other children who themselves later became parents) about the best way to live, based on a never ending chain of seeing all of the possible choices people could choose from about how to live their lives, and they are just passing those teachings along to us so that we don't have to learn the hard way and possibly never get to have the same kind of lives they have. The universe is just all of the space that is out there, real estate, and where we live isn't nearly as important as how we live our lives. And who best to know how to live the best way to live than those who have already learned to live it that way? No need to start from scratch. We have a wonderful Father in heaven who is willing to teach us all that he knows, if we will simply pay attention.
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: My two previous points concerning this claim have yet to be fully addressed 1) Existentialism is 99% atheistic (and the 1% theistic existentialism doesn't really fit into traditional Christianity). Existentialism, however, explicitly rejects the idea that atheism = nihilism, that atheism does not provide meaning or morality. Per Wikipedia, Existentialism is "a tradition of philosophical enquiry" that is "characterized by what has been called 'the existential angst' (or variably, existential attitude, dread, etc.), or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world." I wonder how many people subscribe to it, as opposed to falling into, or back on, a generalized and unlearned atheism. Atheism borne not of studying a school of philosophy, but through reaction to misfortune, and/or by happenstance, and/or by rejection of a religious/moral framework (like organized religion). My guess is that atheism is, for most people, a reactive, fallback notion, not one chosen through calculated study and a informed decision-making thought process. 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: 2) Non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, do not deny the existence of gods but change the definition of a god to something that is neither absolute (they will be reincarnated just like any other life form) nor relevant to the meaning of life. Huh. I should study Buddhism more, particularly since I served my mission in Taiwan, where Buddhist has a big influence. However, Buddhism clearly has a moral code, even if it does not attribute it to deity. 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: In Buddhism, the central point is to end delusion in order to end the cycle of death and rebirth and suffering. Yes, and that process involves adherence to a moral code, right? 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: The path to the end of suffering that the Buddha realized was not created by the gods, not revealed by the gods, but is inherent in the mind and universe and is accessible to humans. How is this reconciled with the idea that without a god there is no meaning or morality? Are you prepared to say that Buddhists have no meaning or morality, that they are nihilists? No. I met many wonderful Buddhists on my mission. Those who take their religious seriously are wonderful people. Buddhists have a moral framework that is external to them. Atheism, by its terms, does not have a moral framework. The atheist is left to fabricate his own, based on anything or nothing at all. I think this is typified in Alma 30:17 ("And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."). I do not deny that there are systems of secular morality (see here). But atheistic morality, to the extent such a thing can exist, is ersatz and derivative. 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: This brings up an interesting question related to LDS cosmology, at least in my limited understanding: where does meaning and morality come from for the LDS? From God and our reliationship to Him. From the Atonement of Jesus Christ. From the Plan of Salvation. From the eschatological objectives set before us. 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: It can't be from God, can it, since God was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, who also was once a human and was/is following the laws of his God, all the way back eternally? We lack much in the way of revealed light and knowledge on this topic (theogony). That God "also was once a human" is a concept we don't really understand. 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: If God were to cease being a God if he broke the laws of justice and/or mercy (if that's the correct quote from the Book of Mormon..?), then the laws of morality are greater than God and separate from him. Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God." However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God." See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19 (emphases added): 15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles. ... 19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. And Alma 42 (emphasis added): 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. ... 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice. See also the numerous scriptures regarding the attributes of God, including: the Lord changes not: 3 Ne. 24:6 . (Moro. 8:18.) God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 . no variableness or shadow of changing in God: Morm. 9:9–10 . God is same yesterday, today, forever: D&C 20:12 . God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 . So, to partially address your "what if" scenario ("If God were to cease being a God..."), we have to look at the lexical limitations we face. But at the end of it all, and based on the above scriptures, my answer is, essentially . . . God will never fall. I'm not sure how "the laws of morality" could be "greater than God and separate from Him." Again, there are lexical and conceptual limitations here. I think there are eternal truths, and that God is subject to them. It is His perfect comportment with "truth" that makes Him what He is. 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: This seems to be connected to Buddhism: the laws of morality are not derived from God, but from the laws of the universe itself. I'm not sure we can split that hair. God has a perfect command of "the laws of the universe," and that's good enough for me. Are these laws "created" by or "recognized and perfectly adhered to" by God? Dunno. That's an interesting question, but not really one that I need to answer at this stage of things. 12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Therefore, meaning doesn't come from God but from the universe. Perhaps God is simply the best moral advisor, like the Buddha? He's more than that, though. He is our Father, and our Creator. He devised the Plan of Salvation. His work and glory is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39) Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 33 minutes ago, Calm said: I know someone, LDS convert****, who feels this way about God. The fact that God exists trivializes his own life into meaninglessness. Anything notable to accomplish, God already has. Hmm. So once a thing is accomplished, and subsequent accomplishments of the thing are meaningless? That doesn't track for me. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Eccl. 1:9) However, just because it is not "new" does not strip it of meaning. I was amazed each time my wife gave birth to each of my six children. The birth of my last child was as momentous and meaningful as the birth of my first. 33 minutes ago, Calm said: At best we are playing catch-up, at worst wasting our time as God will just give us everything we lack anyway if we play by his rules. I'm not sure what this means. 33 minutes ago, Calm said: He could bring about world peace and that is meaningless because God could have done so sooner and better if he tried. Not sure what this means, either. 33 minutes ago, Calm said: Our lives are therefore meaningless except as demonstrations of God’s glory. Our individuality has no value. Pack up and travel the universe, God had been there already. Cure all illness, advance knowledge to its ultimate limits if any, God has already done it. These are conclusory, not explanatory. 33 minutes ago, Calm said: Any individual outside of God is therefore not necessary as God can always find someone else and guide him to do what needs be done. Apparently not. "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39) I think the God as the Creator is a beautiful concept. His purpose is to create life. And to give His children an opportunity to grow and progress to the point where they can join Him in that endeavor. One Eternal Round. I think tremendous "meaning" in that. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: How does the lack of a belief in God trivialize meaning? If "meaning" is understood as "the end, purpose, or significance of something," and if atheism posits that there is no God, and that we only exist by virtue of happenstance, that we blinked into existence at conception (or thereafter), that we will blink out of existence after we die, then these postulations trivialize "meaning" as compared to the Plan of Salvation, which posits that there is real purpose in this life, that we existed before we arrived, that we will continue to exist after we die, that we can perpetuate the things that matter most to us (what we have learned, and relationships with those we love) into the eternities, and that we can join God in the type of life He lives. Quote One can adopt meaning without a belief in God. Maybe. But it's tough work, and perhaps only happens in a derivative way. Daniel Peterson makes some good observations on this subject here: Quote Meaning On one understanding, life arose, simply and exclusively—but, to current scientific understanding, still quite mysteriously—from chance events in a warm little pond or, perhaps, near a volcanic vent deep in an early sea. We humans emerged billions of years thereafter via cellular mutations in the line of apelike organisms who are our ancestors. One way of looking at this evolutionary history—that of Sam Harris, for example—concludes that it leaves no room for purpose or even freedom of the human will. All is the result of natural processes that we call random only because we don’t know all the factors involved; if we knew them all and possessed enough calculating power, we would be able to see that it was entirely inevitable. And, of course, there’s no room for the soul’s survival after death because there’s no soul. We’re, essentially, temporary cell colonies, doomed to annihilation. But this viewpoint seems to entail some potentially disquieting things: If, for instance, our thoughts are merely neurochemical brain events set in motion by a deterministic process that goes all the way back to the Big Bang (perhaps with some quantum uncertainty tossed in to make it a bit less rigid but no less pointless), what can it possibly mean to say that our thoughts are “about” something? Other bodily functions—digestion, respiration or blood circulation, for example—aren’t “about” anything. They simply “are.” And what reason do we have to trust such “thoughts” regarding the nature and meaning of the universe? If our brains evolved to help us survive and reproduce—which is what the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest strongly suggests—how can we be sure that they’re reliable beyond those limited functions? If “meaning” of any sort is to survive, it’s not clear that atheistic naturalism can deliver it. These things make a difference. Option A: "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalm 82:6) We are the children of God. We lived with Him before we came to earth, and we have the opportunity to return to Him after we die. Virtually all of God's children will receive a kingdom of glory, the least of which exceeds our present ability to comprehend. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Cor. 2:9) Option B: "We’re, essentially, temporary cell colonies, doomed to annihilation." (DCP) We blinked into existence at birth, will blink out of existence when we die. "Morality" is whatever you want it to be. Which of these has more "meaning"? Quote Why couldn't meaning without theism be tethered to morality? Because if "morality" is nothing more than "whatever I say it is in the moment," then that's not a tether. That's carte blanche. In contrast, if "morality" is more than "whatever I say it is in the moment," then you subscribe to a higher power (one that establishes "morality"). Good luck if that "higher power" is a man-made government or philosophy. Quote (And did you purposely use examples of theistic people finding meaning in immoral things??) Not sure what you are referencing here. Quote Meaning without theism can be moral. Morality presupposes an arbiter between "right" and "wrong." Between "moral" and "immoral." Who is the arbiter of non-theistic morality? Thanks, -Smac Edited February 4, 2020 by smac97 1
Teancum Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 10:57 AM, smac97 said: Hmm: Not really comfortable with this. I have thought about this possibility, but it's interesting to see it supported by data. Wow. That's a big shift. I think this is quite correct. I also think that kids forsaking religious belief in their childhood/teens are forsaking an important coping mechanism. For me, this becomes particularly difficult to watch happen in Latter-day Saint homes. I know of a situation where a teenager has grown up with all of the perqs and benefits of Gospel observance. Stable and happy family. The teen has had a solid upbringing, done well in school, is socially popular, etc. He's had no meaningful experience with difficulties and challenges in life. Yet. But a few months back he announced to his parents, without explanation, that he does not believe in God and is leaving the Church. Well, that's his choice. But soon he'll be moving out of his parents' home, and into the "real world." So when he starts having substantial exposure to scenarios "when times are tough," he will not have a "faith tradition" to lean on (unless he has a meaningful change of heart). Not sure "lie" is the best solution here. In a choice between "Atheism and Nihilism" or "Atheism and Lies," isn't there a "Door Number Three"? How about avoiding both the nihilism and the lies and choose . . . actual faith? "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend." (Mosiah 4:9) That seems like the best option. Yep. Service to others is, I think, a fundamental ingredient in fostering faith and a healthy outlook on life. "{W}hen ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." (Mosiah 2:17) This is really solid. The value of "community" is very significant. Turning from that community is unfortunate. Yep. Can atheist/agnosticism provide these benefits? I don't think so. Wow. I don't normally turn to the Wall Street Journal for validation of substantive and foundational truths. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Based on this why don't we keep teaching kids to believe in Santa Clause? Or some other myth? What makes one myth better than another. If you teach them about God which God? The historical Christian God? The God of Mormonism,? Of of Islam or Judaism? Or do you teach them Hinduism? The list goes on. You reference teaching them faith but faith is simply a belief with little to no evidence. And again in what should one teach them to have faith in? Having raised my children faithfully as a practicing Mormon I do not have real world experience in this. But if I had it to do now I would teach them to inquire, read, study, seek evidence, have healthy skepticism of just about everything and then make their own way. I would teach them to make the best life they can because this may be all they have. I would teach them to be very careful of anyone who says they have the truth about things for which there is limited evidence. I would teach them to be especially careful of any human who claims a special knowledge from a supernatural being claiming that they need to have faith and trust that what that person says is truth. Last of all I do see the community benefit of religious groups especially those that have at their core a benevolent message of seeking to bless and do good to your fellow beings. I believe that can be found without religion but I think the non believing community has a long way to go before they figure it out as well as many religions have.
Calm Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 46 minutes ago, smac97 said: Atheism, by its terms, does not have a moral framework. By your terms. There are atheists who see their form of atheism as having a moral framework. Their terms are different than your terms. Monolithic atheism no more exists than monolithic theism, so making absolute, global pronouncements about an nonexistent belief system is pretty meaningless in my view. What are you trying to accomplish? Edited February 4, 2020 by Calm 1
Teancum Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 11:22 AM, Calm said: Disagree with what? Lying to your kids about your belief they will be decomposing bodies if they die? What do you suggest an atheist tell their kids about death? Or with the claims atheism may be contributing to depression, etc in children? If so, Based on what? You tell them the truth and teach them how to cope with it.
Meadowchik Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: If "meaning" is understood as "the end, purpose, or significance of something," and if atheism posits that there is no God, and that we only exist by virtue of happenstance, that we blinked into existence at conception (or thereafter), that we will blink out of existence after we die, then these postulations trivialize "meaning" as compared to the Plan of Salvation, which posits that there is real purpose in this life, that we existed before we arrived, that we will continue to exist after we die, that we can perpetuate the things that matter most to us (what we have learned, and relationships with those we love) into the eternities, and that we can join God in the type of life He lives. Having an expectation of eternity can trivialize life now, and believing you will live after you die does not mean you will live after you die. What we know we have now is basically the same, some finite amount of time until death. A theist may or may not use that knowledge to give each moment in life more significance or less. An atheist may or may not use that knowledge to give each moment in life more significance or less. An atheist can live as if this life right now is the only version of "eternity" that they have. A theist may live life as if it is a blip. 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: Because if "morality" is nothing more than "whatever I say it is in the moment," then that's not a tether. If "morality" is more than "whatever I say it is in the moment," then you subscribe to a higher power (one that establishes "morality"). Good luck if that "higher power" is a man-made government or philosophy. For all you know, a "higher power" morality is just a man-made philosophy. One could argue that faith-based morality based on little to no evidence, or based on whatever one official representative says at the moment, is just as vulnerable and untethered. 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not sure what you are referencing here. Morality presupposes an arbiter between "right" and "wrong." Between "moral" and "immoral." Who is the arbiter of non-theistic morality? Thanks, -Smac I would hardly think Daniel Peterson is the person to go to for a representation of the what morality can be derived without theism. I've already given an example of a construct here that derives morality without theism, and it is one that has stood the test of centuries, too. 27 minutes ago, smac97 said: Not sure what you are referencing here. Your examples of religionists doing very bad things. 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: Morality presupposes an arbiter between "right" and "wrong." Between "moral" and "immoral." Does it really? Why? What is the difference between you deciding which God to worship and therefore which values to adopt and therefore what morals to follow, and that of someone else deciding what evidence to consider and then what principles to adopt and therefore what morals to follow? In both cases, the individual is the arbiter. In both cases, the individual is ceding ground to something or someone outside themselves which they believe to be important. 2
Calm Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 51 minutes ago, smac97 said: That doesn't track for me. For your terms, sure, but it made perfect sense for his. 1
Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Does it really? Why? What is the difference between you deciding which God to worship and therefore which values to adopt and therefore what morals to follow, and that of someone else deciding what evidence to consider and then what principles to adopt and therefore what morals to follow? In both cases, the individual is the arbiter. In both cases, the individual is ceding ground to something or someone outside themselves which they believe to be important. In this world we have judges in our court systems, but if we are equal to them why can't we just overrule them and their decisions and shoot them dead without flinching? They would say that was illegal or wrong, but so what? If you are equal to them then you can just tell them you don't agree with their decisions or rulings and walk away as if you didn't do anything wrong. Unless one of them tackles you then you would have to try to kill that person to get away. Am I making my point yet? Any person or thing you consider to be higher in power or more supreme is who you bow to as someone or something whose decision has more bearing than your own. Or do you not have anybody like that in your life? Are you the most supreme person you know of? Nobody better than you? Edited February 4, 2020 by Ahab
Teancum Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 11:57 AM, smac97 said: Okay, I'll amend my previous statement: Can atheist/agnosticism provide these benefits? I don't think so. Not nearly as well as religious observance can. There is a nihilism inherent in atheism (and, to an extent, agnosticism) that is pretty hard to sidestep. That's a point at the core of the article. That nihilism is hard on kids, so the therapist tells atheists to lie to their kids. As a means of helping those kids avoid (or at least postpone) facing the nihilism that is necessarily and inherently a part of what atheism is. Is that better? Yes, they have. To be atheist is to affirmatively deny the existence of God. A person who has not "shut the door completely on ... there being a God" is perhaps properly described as agnostic. Or perhaps agnostic theism. Personally, I find agnosticism less nihilistic than atheist, but not by much. We all see that. Okay. Thanks, -Smac An atheist certainly can create meaning to life so I reject that it is inherently nihilistic.
Calm Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 38 minutes ago, smac97 said: then these postulations trivialize "meaning" as compared to the Plan of Salvation, Quote was amazed each time my wife gave birth to each of my six children. The birth of my last child was as momentous and meaningful as the birth of my first And each took place only in what amounts ti a brief moment of time even in a span of life measured in solely mortal years and yet was extremely meaningful to you, was it not?
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Based on this why don't we keep teaching kids to believe in Santa Clause? Or some other myth? I don't follow. I said I disagreed with the therapist's advocacy of lying to kids. 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: What makes one myth better than another. Myths can be fun. My kids are big fans of all sorts of myths: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Avatar, and so on. Some of these myths teach useful lessons. Harry Potter teaches us about love, friendship, bravery, and so on. Lord of the Rings teaches us about bravery, loyalty, mercy, and so on. But mostly, myths are fun stories. They should not be conflated with reality. And I don't think they are. My wife and I "went along" with popular myths like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when our children were very young. Because it was fun and benign. But as soon as they asked us if Santa was real, we told them the truth. 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: If you teach them about God which God? The historical Christian God? The God of Mormonism,? Of of Islam or Judaism? Or do you teach them Hinduism? The list goes on. I teach them what I understand and believe to be true. And I don't differentiate between these. "The historical Christian God" is not numerically distinct from "the God of Mormonism." 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: You reference teaching them faith but faith is simply a belief with little to no evidence. And again in what should one teach them to have faith in? That's up to the parents. 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Having raised my children faithfully as a practicing Mormon I do not have real world experience in this. But if I had it to do now I would teach them to inquire, read, study, seek evidence, have healthy skepticism of just about everything and then make their own way. I wouldn't. I would teach them the moral and spiritual truths I have lived by, and tested for myself, and found to be meritorious. I may be wrong in the end, but I'm not going to be ambivalent when it comes to teaching morality to my children. 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: I would teach them to make the best life they can because this may be all they have. I'm not sure what "the best life" means. And "this may be all they have" rather encapsulates the existential angst that children can encounter. 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: I would teach them to be very careful of anyone who says they have the truth about things for which there is limited evidence. I'm not sure how this would play out in the real world. 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: I would teach them to be especially careful of any human who claims a special knowledge from a supernatural being claiming that they need to have faith and trust that what that person says is truth. Same here. This is why I have so long appreciated the Church's approach, which centers on the individual seeking their own spiritual confirmation of prophetic teachings. We don't teach our children "that they need to have faith and trust that what that person says is truth." Moroni's Promise isn't about trusting Moroni and the other prophets, at least not fundamentally. "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5) 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Last of all I do see the community benefit of religious groups especially those that have at their core a benevolent message of seeking to bless and do good to your fellow beings. So do I. 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: I believe that can be found without religion but I think the non believing community has a long way to go before they figure it out as well as many religions have. I am curious how many atheist groups fit this description. How many atheists form into groups "those that have at their core a benevolent message of seeking to bless and do good to your fellow beings," and actually go about performing acts of service for their fellow man? (Honest question.) See, e.g., here: Quote Religious people more likely to give to charity, study showsBy Bradford Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, October 30, 2017 Newly released data show that the religious among us are more likely to give to charities than those who do not identify with a faith tradition. The data result from the Philanthropy Panel Study, an ongoing project at the University of Indiana’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy that tracks U.S. household giving. David King, director of the Institute on Faith & Giving at the school, said the “Giving USA Special Report on Giving to Religion,” released on Oct. 26 by The Giving Institute, reaffirms what many researchers in the field have long known: that there is a “substantial connection between religion and giving.” “Religious affiliation really matters,” Mr. King said. “Someone with a religious affiliation was more than two times more generous than someone without a religious affiliation. And among those with a religious affiliation, religious intensity really matters. Those who attend services were much more likely to give, whether it’s monthly or weekly. We really see the connection grow with continued involvement in a religious community.” Not surprisingly, religiously affiliated households are much more likely than nonreligious households to donate to religious institutions defined in the report as congregations, denominations, missionary societies and religious media. But religious people also contribute to other types of charity at similar or higher rates than their secular counterparts. The report says there is a “staggering difference between the charitable giving practices of the religiously affiliated and those with no religious affiliation.” While 62 percent of religious households give to charity, only 46 percent of nonreligious households do. Will "the non believing community" ever catch up? I doubt it. A "community" that defines itself by what it is not is not much of a community at all. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Teancum said: An atheist certainly can create meaning to life so I reject that it is inherently nihilistic. Nihilism: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless." I think an atheist can develop "moral principles." But I think those principles are weak, ersatz, and derivative. And these principles are no better than those espoused by religionists (and are often considerably worse). I also think an atheist can find "meaning" in life. But again, that meaning is weak, ersatz, and derivative. I don't begrudge atheists in developing these principles, or in seeking out "meaning." I just find it ironic that in doing so they end up looking an awful lot like the religionists from whom they are distancing themselves. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Teancum said: An atheist certainly can create meaning to life so I reject that it is inherently nihilistic. I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective, I agree with you. Atheism is not "inherently" nihilistic. It is my position (and I don't understand how any believing Latter-day Saint could disagree with this as a mater of faith), that atheists are able to create meaning, only because there really is a God. We have faith that God created individual "selves" with purpose and gave the self agency, which allows us to create meaning for ourselves. Therefore, as a mater of faith, we must conclude that if meaning is a product of agency and of the self, and if God is the source of agency and creation of the self as we know it, then without God there is no agency, self, and meaning - and this is all an illusion (interesting that many atheists have come to that same conclusion, and many scientists are beginning to come to that same conclusion as well). Atheism only necessarily leads to nihilism if there really is no God. That is what our faith suggests anyway, and I don't understand how any member could disagree with that without suspending their faith. Existence as we know it is because of God, without God, this is an illusion. Edited February 4, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 4, 2020 Posted February 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective, I agree with you. Atheism is not "inherently" nihilistic. It is my position (and I don't understand how any believing Latter-day Saint could disagree with this as a mater of faith), that atheists are able to create meaning, only because there really is a God. We have faith that God created individual "selves" with purpose and gave the self agency, which allows us to create meaning for ourselves. Therefore, as a mater of faith, we must conclude that if meaning is a product of agency and of the self, and if God is the source of agency and creation of the self as we know it, then without God there is no agency, self, and meaning - and this is all an illusion (interesting that many atheists are beginning to come to that same conclusion). Atheism only necessarily leads to nihilism if there really is no God. That is what our faith suggests anyway, and I don't understand how any member could disagree with that without suspending their faith. Existence as we know it is because of God, without God, this is an illusion. i think you and I and smac and other theists agree with each other about this. I just don't think Meadowchik and other so-called atheists agree with us theists.
Recommended Posts