_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lj2zr wrote
Reply to comment by catnapspirit in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
Let's grant everything you say about theism for the time being- I don't think this changes much about the decision to sit with naturalism. Remember, I'm not trying to convince you of theism. What I'm saying is, "why not keep looking anywhere else (including somewhere other than theism) than to sit contentedly on naturalism?"
"I fail to see how belief in an infinite afterlife doesn't completely diminish this finite life."
For what it's worth, theists have every reason to value this life, because our actions have eternal consequences and our lives have real objective value. On theism, this life is the setting stage for eternity and therefore is of infinite worth.
"The bounded time frame adds a sense of urgency to seeing what we can accomplish, both individually and collectively as a species."
Who will it matter to when the universe is cold, dark, and empty? I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wipes of its contents.
catnapspirit t1_j2lln47 wrote
It will matter to those who accomplish great things. Heck, we accomplish great things every day. You can say that you value this life because it sets you on a trajectory for the afterlife, but that's not really the same thing. You can put in the minimum effort or a maximal effort, and the result is the same. Mother Teresa doesn't get a special place or a particularly shiny set of wings or anything.
What is there to accomplish in the infinite? By definition, all accomplishment is diminished to zero, integrated over infinity.
And again, naturalism just is. We're not "chosing to sit with" naturalism. I guess you're right that what you're proposing is not exactly Pascal's Wager. It's more like you're saying that naturalism is just so boring, why don't we look into other alternatives? Not exactly compelling. We're "content" with naturalism because it answers everything. Everything that can be answered, that is. The rest we get to answer for ourselves, which circles back around to that sense of freedom that the finite gives, which the infinite will always find lacking..
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lmi8f wrote
"It will matter to those who accomplish great things."
They will not exist when the universe is dead.
As for your views on theism, I personally don't find them accurate, but we aren't here to be convinced of theism (as I previously mentioned), so I don't think these details are a relevant matter.
"By definition, all accomplishment is diminished to zero, integrated over infinity."
If there were other fates for the universe that didn't result this way, would you be interested in avoiding this fate?
"It's more like you're saying that naturalism is just so boring, why don't we look into other alternatives? Not exactly compelling."
To be clear, I think naturalists should find their worldview's implications horrifying and infinitely empty in the worst way. Not boring.
catnapspirit t1_j2lo9ml wrote
>>It will matter to those who accomplish great things. > >They will not exist when the universe is dead.
Of course not, things only "matter" within the time frame that they exist and to the sentient beings who simultaneously exist to appreciate them. Mattering is not something that should or ever could go on for all perpetuity.
>>By definition, all accomplishment is diminished to zero, integrated over infinity. > >If there were other fates for the universe that didn't result this way, would you be interested in avoiding this fate?
If they held the explanatory power of naturalism and weren't self-evidently untrue and based on wish fulfillment, I suppose I would.
>To be clear, I think naturalists should find their worldview's implications horrifying and infinitely empty in the worst way. Not boring.
Well, I've already explained how we find it freeing and how it enables us to lead a better life, which you previously accepted. I've also explained why I find the infinite to render all meaning null and void. Meaning is only possible within the confines of the finite. I don't see how it could be otherwise..
Crabbagio t1_j2nxdr3 wrote
I just want to interject and say I admire your patience. I feel like every point you make is refuted with just a rewording of the previous response.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2pkfsu wrote
Can you give me an example of where you think I am rewording his responses?
Crabbagio t1_j2raqoi wrote
Sorry if I worded that poorly. I meant that I feel you were rewording your own responses. The whole chain essentially boiled down to "yeah but without an eternal afterlife what's the point in doing anything," which you just repeated using different vocabulary.
Not that that isn't a valid philosophical stance, of course. Just makes for a very exhausting conversation
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2riwxx wrote
I'm sorry it appears that way, since I've been trying to respond with intention to each of the points in the conversation. I would invite you to reassess the thread as the post winds down to see the development of these points.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lpg7k wrote
To this point: "Mattering is not something that should or ever could go on for all perpetuity."
Why not?
"If they held the explanatory power of naturalism and weren't self-evidently untrue and based on wish fulfillment, I suppose I would."
Are you certain there are no other worldviews that satisfy these stipulations? If not, why settle on naturalism?
For example, many people find theism explanatorily powerful, not self-evidently untrue, and not based on wish fulfillment, but actually true (e.g. the majority of philosophers of religion by measure). Are you certain theism is false? If perhaps not certain, wouldn't it be worth taking a second, third, even fourth look? And if not theism, then anything other than naturalism?
catnapspirit t1_j2ls7a7 wrote
>To this point: "Mattering is not something that should or ever could go on for all perpetuity." >Why not?
Things change. Mattering changes. The people experiencing the thing and deciding that it matters change. None of this is possible in the infinite. I went over this.
>Are you certain there are no other worldviews that satisfy these stipulations? If not, why settle on naturalism?
Well, for one thing, I don't find naturalism unsatisfying. That should be self-evident by now.
I'm certainly convinced that all theistic (and by extention deistic) religions are man-made and have nothing to offer but wish fulfillment (as I previously eluded to), among other ills.
Buddhism I think does have a lot to say about the human experience, but I don't find any of that in conflict or even necessarily outside the bounds of naturalism. (Many atheists would agree, in my experience.) The Tao and sayings of Confucius also have a good bit of wisdom to them as well. Have you given those options a fair look..?
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2ltjbc wrote
To your point: "None of this is possible in the infinite." Sure it is. Theists, for example, derive objective purpose and meaning from God's having created them for intended purposes (namely to know God and enjoy him forever). We have no issue grounding such things in God for eternal time-spans.
"Well, for one thing, I don't find naturalism unsatisfying." As you said earlier, if you could have a different outcome for the universe (+stipulations) you would. So why not be unsatisfied? Why would infinite oblivion be preferable to a continued search at minimum?
"The Tao and sayings of Confucius also have a good bit of wisdom to them as well. Have you given those options a fair look..?"
Definitely. I love philosophy of religion and have investigated Taoism and Confucianism. All said, I find the Christian truth claims to be convincing, and do not have the same pressure to "find my life jacket" that the naturalist does.
catnapspirit t1_j2luw00 wrote
>Theists, for example, derive objective purpose and meaning from God's having created them for intended purposes (namely to know God and enjoy him forever).
We weren't talking about "objective purpose," we were talking about finding meaning. And I'd argue you're not finding purpose, you're just outsourcing the job of finding purpose to god.
>As you said earlier, if you could have a different outcome for the universe (+stipulations) you would.
I think you might be mixing me up with someone else you're replying to.
EDIT: Ah, sorry, I reread things and found what you were referring to. That was not a matter of if I could I would, it was stated more so that if it had better explanatory power, I would be compelled to look into it. I'm still not going to choose fantasy over reality just because it sounds nice.
>Why would infinite oblivion be preferable to a continued search at minimum?
Infinite oblivion, as you put it, isn't preferable. There are a thousand sci-fi / fantasy worlds that I've read that would be wonderful to live in. But reality is reality. Can't change that.
And as you apparently have also, I've done quite a bit of searching..
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2poinf wrote
"We weren't talking about "objective purpose," we were talking about finding meaning. And I'd argue you're not finding purpose, you're just outsourcing the job of finding purpose to god."
Sure, that's why I included meaning in the statement. Purpose is related, but not the point. I don't think there's anything objectionable about God being the ground of meaning and purpose if he's the one created things with intended purposes and imbuing reality with intentional meaning. Whether I think this or whether you agree is not entirely relevant though.
"That was not a matter of if I could I would, it was stated more so that if it had better explanatory power, I would be compelled to look into it."
Again, are you certain that there categorically are no non-naturalist views that satisfy the above? To claim "yes" to that statement would be like an admission of being omniscient.
In my own experience, every atheist convert to Christianity I met has expressed to me the certainty with which they held their beliefs only to feel ashamed of that certainty upon interacting more deeply with the intellectual tradition of the faith and changing their mind. This is also, at times, true in the reverse, and bolsters the point that we shouldn't rest too happily on certainty, especially when there's nothing to be happy about on naturalism.
"I'm still not going to choose fantasy over reality just because it sounds nice."
No one is asking you to choose something you have no justification to believe in. I'm saying you have every motivation to investigate it in light of the fact that naturalism has nothing to offer that won't be taken away. There's just no good reason to cling to naturalism; it's like being the man on the boat that just decides to sit down and die- is that your preferred option in that scenario?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments