Imminent_Extinction t1_j2lrx7k wrote
Reply to comment by _Zirath_ in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
This...
> ...the implications of naturalism and the utter oblivion it asserts we are all doomed to...
...isn't actually something people will experience, and therefore doesn't qualify as an...
> ...outcome that decrease one’s future well-being...
...and the "natural laws and forces" observed by naturalism have demonstrably produced results that can be experienced and qualify as...
> ...outcomes that increase one’s future well-being...
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lslcg wrote
I already replied to this point in the original post:
"If we let utility mean future well-being, then why arbitrarily stop measuring the impact of the future at the end of one’s life? That’s like burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami and saying, “everything’s just fine if I don’t look!” In addition, it’s not how people tend to look at other endeavors that affect peoples’ lives after they die. For example, people typically want to make positive political changes in the world before they die, leave the world a better place for their children, invent something that will make a mark on history, etc. After all, the universe continues on into the future even if the Naturalist doesn’t. Any positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises; the Naturalist should therefore consider how this impacts his decisions now."
Imminent_Extinction t1_j2lx0b4 wrote
Unless the effects are personal and immediate, most people (including non-Naturalists) are indifferent to the concerns you're describing. Hence the use of leaded gasoline for nearly 100 years, climate change, industrial pollution, the use of slavery in major food and clothing brands, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, overfishing, wealth inequality, and so on and so forth. Heck, in some regions people are even willfully ignorant of tsunami risks!
Edit: lol I just checked your comment history. You clearly despise the "woke" crowd, but here you're suggesting people are typically that and presenting it as a virtue no less. Hilarious!
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lztj1 wrote
Why do you think I'm making the post? My aim is to spur a subset of people (naturalists/atheists) to reconsider and take in the big picture. Seems to have had an effect on atheists I know personally.
Frankly, I don't understand your last point. It doesn't look like you're aiming to be helpful or charitable though, so I guess that's disappointing.
Imminent_Extinction t1_j2m22ag wrote
You seem intent on using a sense of despair to evangelize and based on your choice of words I'd guess you're generally indifferent to (or in denial of) most modern problems, "burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami" as it were. But that's not the point.
The point is your claim that "people typically want to make positive political changes in the world before they die, leave the world a better place for their children, invent something that will make a mark on history, etc." doesn't account for the willfull ignorance people have for the impersonal and distant. And your claim that "positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises" isn't an argument to abandon Naturalism, it's just a statement of fact, and one with little weight because that future isn't personal or immediate.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2rwfqy wrote
"based on your choice of words I'd guess you're generally indifferent to (or in denial of) most modern problems, "burying your head in the sand in the face of a massive tsunami" as it were."
You assume wrong. I am neither indifferent to nor in denial of such things.
"The point is your claim that "people typically want to make positive political changes in the world before they die, leave the world a better place for their children, invent something that will make a mark on history, etc." doesn't account for the willfull ignorance people have for the impersonal and distant."
I agree that naturalists are often ignorant of the implications of their worldview. Again, that's why I'm making this argument- I think naturalists should follow their worldview to its conclusions and take a long hard look at whether that's something they want to sit on or perhaps instead endeavor to disprove.
"And your claim that "positive utility gained now must be measured against the looming reality of infinite meaninglessness and nothingness that the future promises" isn't an argument to abandon Naturalism, it's just a statement of fact"
I agree it's a statement of fact, on naturalism (i.e. if that worldview is held to be true). And this conclusion should compel people to be dissatisfied with naturalism, not cling to it proudly.
[deleted] t1_j2uto1i wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j314z7s wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
julebrus- t1_j2p52bc wrote
Your aim is for people to accept a comfortable lie instead of an uncomfortable fact.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments