(We are experiencing a periodic problem with downloading images.)
"'The hopes and fears of all the years
"'Are met in thee tonight.'" (p. 336)
Evocative lines in a carol. I think that hopes and fears meet every night if we can see it. Carols express belief in immortality:
"And man will live forever more..."
"And man will live forever more..."
I certainly do not buy that. We have discussed the nature of consciousness which overlaps with the question of whether individual consciousness can continue indefinitely. As an Ythrian of the New Faith asked: "How could it? Why should it?"
Surely the evidence indicates that consciousness is a property of organisms with central nervous systems and that it plays an evolutionary role? If there is any evidence to the contrary, e.g., from Spiritualism, then that evidence needs to be scientifically investigated.
If there is a hereafter, then people are entering it all the time, especially now, whereas, if there is no hereafter, then no one will ever know. I am sceptical first that there is a hereafter and, secondly, that, if there is, then it is anything like what anyone believes. Are Muslims currently learning that Christians were right or vice versa? Surely it cannot be that simple? In The Great Divorce, CS Lewis, a Christian, imagined a hereafter in which many people remain as confused after death as they were before it. That sounds plausible as far as it goes. But:
Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the Wise
To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;
One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown forever dies.
To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;
One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown forever dies.
-copied from here.
We are such stuff
As dreams are made on: and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
As dreams are made on: and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
-copied from here.
It is appropriate to reflect on life and death at the Midwinter Festival.
19 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe in either materialism or atheism, both of which I consider weak and unconvincing. I've never seen any pro-atheist arguments that made sense, which did not depend merely on faith that God is not real. But I have seen arguments from philosophers as long ago as Aristotle defending the existence of God based on reason alone. You might not like or agree with those pro-theist arguments, but they struck me as far more convincing than the "there is no God" stuff.
Since I believe Christianity to be literally true and divinely revealed, it logically follows that those whom I believe to be in error will discover after death how mistaken they were. The Buddhist will discover there is no reincarnation or nirvana, and the Muslim will discover Mohammed was not a prophet, etc.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
We do not have to argue for a negative proposition. You have to argue for a positive proposition.
I was indoctrinated in pro-theist arguments and now disagree with them. Like or dislike does not come into it.
No one should face death convinced that he is right and others are wrong. Some humility seems more appropriate. I don't believe in any of those hereafters but I will find out - if and only if there is indeed a hereafter of some sort.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, if atheists deny God is real, I believe it is reasonable asking them to prove that. If they can't I see no reason to take atheism seriously.
Again, I disagree. If I am convinced X is true and Y is not, I see no reason not to remain convinced of that at death. The Catholic view is that God will judge those who were in error with mercy.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Atheists do not have to deny God is real. They just have to say that they have no need for that hypothesis. The onus is on anyone who makes a positive statement to present reasons or evidence for it. This is a logical point that you consistently miss. I do not have to prove that there are no cities hidden beneath the surface of Mars. I assume that there are not on the basis of the evidence so far. Anyone who asserts that there are hidden Martian cities is obliged to present very strong evidence for that assertion. Believe it or not, I do know someone who has scoffed at the suggestion that there are no Martian cities just because we can't see them! Your assumption that your belief can be assumed to be true unless and until it is definitely disproved turns all the rules of logic and evidence on their heads.
You convince yourself that X is true. Maybe you could summarize an Aristotelean argument for God's existence and explain why you find it convincing?
God, if He exists, will hopefully judge everyone with mercy. I am sure that everyone is "in error" in the sense that reality is vaster than any of our beliefs about it. Many of the propositions that we think are true will turn out to have been false. Everyone would have a great deal to learn if we really did survive into some vaster realm. Certainty at this stage that you are right and that others are wrong is unwarranted and sounds like hubris.
Paul.
Or to sum up, a non-falsifiable hypothesis is a semantic null set. It's not true or false, it's devoid of meaning.
Kaor, Paul!
Paul: Then we can't agree. Pro-theist philosophers at least tried to argue for belief in the existence of God using reason alone. But, if all that the anti-theists can come up with is avowing they have no need for the hypothesis of God, I not only disagree with that denial but also consider it to be weak and unconvincing.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
But it doesn't have to convince! You have to prove your positive case!
"...at least tried to argue..." is very weak indeed. You start with at belief, then you at least try to defend it? Where did the belief come from? Can you show us why you think that any particular Aristotelean argument is convincing?
Paul.
If anyone claims that there are underground cities on Mars, then he is obliged to present very strong evidence for this assertion. If I doubt his claim and he challenges me to disprove it, then he is completely out of order - especially if he adds that my failure to present a disproof is "unconvincing"!
There is a very basic logical point here that I am obviously simply failing to communicate.
Kaor, Paul!
But you don't agree with philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Mortimer Adler, etc., etc., who have made those positive arguments for the existence of God. So what point would there be recapitulating arguments you disagree with?
And many atheists strikes me as having only faith in the non-existence of God if they can't argue for that POV. I still think that it is reasonable to ask atheists to argue in defense of that view if they insist God is not real.
Again, we have reached an impasse.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
An absurd example is meant to highlight a point. Again: I do not believe that there is a China tea service in orbit 50 miles beyond Pluto but I am not obliged to prove that there is not but, if anyone claims that there is, then he is obliged to prove that. He should certainly not defy me to disprove it.
Atheists just need to say that they can make perfect sense of the world and life without resorting to anthropomorphism. Species evolved. They were not specially created.
As a matter of fact, I can argue that the concept of God in Christian theology is incoherent. But these are philosophical arguments that are far removed from life as we live it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not that far removed from real life! I recall how fanatical atheists started a persecution of Christians during the French Revolution. A precedent eagerly adopted by atheists like Lenin and his henchmen after seizing power in Russia. My point being dogmatic atheists can be very hostile to those who disagree with them.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
As can any other dogmatists. That does not affect the truth or falsity of the beliefs concerned. Those fanatical atheists would not have known much about analytic philosophy.
How much persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was there by "Lenin and his henchmen"?
Paul.
Sean,
Your theism is not a conclusion but an unfalsifiable premise. I attempt not to change beliefs but to clarify issues but I think that I fail in that since the discussion always seems to be at exactly the same stage.
Paul.
For example, I have consistently failed to convey that there is an obligation to prove a positive proposition but not to prove a negative proposition. If anyone says, "I will continue to believe that there are Martians until someone proves that there are not," then he has got the rules of evidence the wrong way round.
Kaor, Paul!
I think part of the problem is I have seen so many atheists online fanatically denying the reality of God in the most insulting and condescending ways possible, brushing aside the arguments of the theistic philosophers listed above. If they are going to behave like that I see no reason to take them seriously.
Happy New Year!
Sean,
But that is not all atheists! I could cite some objectionable theists. The truth or falsity of a belief stands or falls on its merits.
Paul.
Sean,
You still seem to think of the positive doctrine of theism as a given. It is the positive doctrine that requires some proof. Someone who sees no reason to accept a doctrine is not obliged to present any disproof of the doctrine.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Granted, but some of the noisiest atheists, both online and the media, are like that.
God is the true end and necessity of all beings. I believe those who deny the need/reality of God to be gravely mistaken.
In any case mere philosophic arguments can never definitively resolve such issues. It comes down to being a matter of faith.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
In the case of Buddhism, I can state reasons why someone might find meditation beneficial. I do not have to resort to an appeal to faith.
To persevere with meditation practice, we sometimes have to trust our teachers and the tradition as well as our own experience and understanding. This is as close as I can get to "faith."
Paul.
Post a Comment