coyote-1 t1_j2kwgwj wrote
An entire region suddenly floods due to staggering rainfall. In the aftermath, rescuers in a boat spot a man on his roof. They cruise up, offer the man space on the boat. He replies:
”No thank you, The Lord will provide.”
I won’t belabor the point. You all Know this story ends with the man in Heaven demanding to know why the Lord did not provide, to which the Lord replies “I sent three boats and a helicopter“.
The pre-conclusion reached by the OP is hogwash. As demonstrated by this story. Belief in god that overrides rational naturalism leads to irrational behavior in this world. And the whole of the argument IS Pascal’s Wager, just in longer verbiage.
Oninonenbutsu t1_j2l4cwd wrote
Think of the real life implications of this also. We are on a boat (the Earth), which is sinking (natural disasters, climate change, nuclear threats). According to the eschatological views of many theists such threats should be welcomed as they predict the coming of their savior in the next few years (so no reason to worry about your grandchildren). Or even worse they may be inclined to add even more fuel to the fire.
The for the most part non-theistic scientists on the other hand are doing what they can to end this madness and to stop this ship from sinking.
OP has it the wrong way around.
Naturath t1_j2lbv96 wrote
OP cannot seem to comprehend a meaningful life or sense of morality without divine inspiration. This is highly reminiscent of Christian theology which argues all “good” comes from God. Their premises all require this fundamentally unfounded assumption, in a rather telling display of preconception and bias.
OP disregards the plethora of historical and modern examples of theocratic governments and religious figures who have actively acted in “negative utility” towards humanity’s wellbeing. Their idea that theism can “potentially” inspire infinite good is arbitrarily decided, artificially restricting such potential from non-theist sources with no actual reasoning as to why.
The fact that OP considers caring about future generations and one’s own legacy postmortem as a purely theist idea is laughable. This is a clear example of beginning at a conclusion and vomiting words, hoping the audience isn’t actually paying attention.
OP is naive at best, though I personally find such rhetoric more likely to be intentionally deceptive.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lrwkk wrote
All your flimsy critique of theism aside, nothing you stated has anything to do with the thrust of the post. Additionally this post doesn't seek to convince people of theism (as stated) but only offers it as a potential alternative.
The actual point was this: naturalism is an existentially dead-end worldview bereft of objective purpose and meaning, and one which is fated to the heat death of the universe. No one should be content to believe such a thing, and even a convinced naturalist should endeavor to prove it wrong.
Naturath t1_j2lvtfi wrote
Ironically, my comment wasn’t even meant as a critique of theism. Rather, it was a critique of your plethora of arbitrary yet undeclared presumptions. For all your attempts at forming a logical presentation, your post is littered with unsupported claims and assumptions. Your argument showed undue bias before you even finished your list of premises.
By your replies, it seems your motivation lies within a perceived “hopelessness” in a life without divine motivation and the promise of an enduring afterlife. Such is more a reflection of your own discomfort and has nothing to do with the actual precepts of naturalism nor atheism. Your declaration of “dead-end worldview” is remarkably arrogant; the beliefs of others have no duty to align with your personal feelings.
You begin with far too many assumptions. Your proposal of an alternative seeks to solve an issue you are simultaneously introducing and asserting as unquestionable. No amount of discourse can be productive when you begin with such a flawed premise.
That your assumptions happen to overlap with common Christian rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant, if not also somewhat indicative of bad faith.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lx2fn wrote
"By your replies, it seems your motivation lies within a perceived hopelessness in a life without divine motivation and the promise of an enduring afterlife."
You are already off-base. I perceive hopelessness on naturalism on the basis of its own terms, completely independent of theism. Naturalism offers only infinite nothingness and that's a problem for naturalists, some of whom have said as much to me personally.
"Your declaration of “dead-end worldview” is remarkably arrogant; the beliefs of others have no duty to align with your personal feelings."
You left off an important word. I said it is an existentially dead-end worldview. Which it is, because it asserts as much. According to naturalism, you are here by accident, for no reason, and you will cease to exist forever just as meaninglessly as you began to exist.
"No amount of discourse can be productive when you begin with such a flawed premise."
If you've got a problem with a specific premise, then you have yet to make it clear which premise that is.
"That your assumptions happen to overlap with common Christian rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant, if not also somewhat indicative of bad faith."
I am unabashedly a Christian attempting to attack naturalism, and have made this clear in my post and comments. This does not exclude good faith discussion. This is how arguments are tested, which is what this post is here for. Meanwhile, your condescension, your repeated speculation on my motivations, and your irrelevant points on theism convince me that you are the one not here in good faith.
Naturath t1_j2pomn1 wrote
>A problem for naturalists, some of whom had said as much to me personally.
Ah yes, the famous appeal to vague, uncounted and unspecified, yet unquestionable persons. Famous among populists and grade schoolers. Again, you are the one making the claim that such an idea is both problematic and also single-handedly capable of subjecting an entire belief system to “infinite negative utility,” something you continue to poorly define and justify.
You continue to prescribe some kind of divine purpose as inherent to meaning. Whether you attach objective before that word is redundant; meaning inherently is a subjective conception and not something you can arbitrarily revoke from others.
>If you’ve got a problem with a specific premise…
I have a problem with practically all your premises and their foundation on unwritten yet unavoidable preconceptions. That you somehow have managed to read through multiple paragraphs without acknowledging this is astonishing.
>This is how arguments are tested.
Your replies to others as well as to me have constantly dodged the substance of their criticisms while continuing to assert the same dubious premises. You seem less inclined to test your claims rather than defend them as unquestionably true. I speculate publicly on your motivations because you display them nakedly through your replies.
As one raised in the church myself, your argument makes a mockery of both philosophical theology and general logical debate.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2puoy3 wrote
"Ah yes, the famous appeal to vague, uncounted and unspecified, yet unquestionable persons."
I'm just relating my experience. Why you feel so sensitive as to interpret what I said here as an argument is beyond me.
"Again, you are the one making the claim that such an idea is both problematic and also single-handedly capable of subjecting an entire belief system to “infinite negative utility,” something you continue to poorly define and justify."
Actually I have a whole post explaining my reasoning. If you're still confused, feel free to ask for clarification like an honest commenter in good faith discussion would.
"You continue to prescribe some kind of divine purpose as inherent to meaning."
I literally said that nowhere. And my argument doesn't rely at all on my theism.
"Whether you attach objective before that word is redundant"
Wrong word and wrong statement. The word is "existentially." Naturalism is an existentially dead-end worldview.
"meaning inherently is a subjective conception and not something you can arbitrarily revoke from others."
I don't believe that's true, but it's not really relevant since I am trying to make the same point: on naturalism, meaning is not objective.
"I have a problem with practically all your premises and their foundation on unwritten yet unavoidable preconceptions."
That's the definition of a vague and unspecified rebuttal if I've ever heard one, folks.
"I speculate publicly on your motivations because you display them nakedly through your replies"
This is almost humorous at this point, since I made my motivations quite clear already: I am a Christian who is here to attack naturalism and see how the philosophy community on reddit responds to an argument I like to use. So far, I have found the experience invigorating and confirming of some thoughts of mine.
"As one raised in the church myself, your argument makes a mockery of both philosophical theology and general logical debate."
Ok, feel free to get specific and discuss something of substance whenever you'd like.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lcmts wrote
As a Christian myself, nothing that you describe is inherent to theism, even if it is true that some theists believe in letting world disasters continue unabated. To the point, I don't believe that's an issue of philosophical coherency on theism.
To the second point you make about unbelieving scientists, however: stopping the boat from sinking now only appears to delay the inevitable; after all, the universe will undergo heat death and total destruction in the future and all human progress will be wiped away forever. If life is worth clinging to temporarily, why is life not worth clinging to eternally given this chance we have to search for it?
Oninonenbutsu t1_j2lmmsy wrote
>As a Christian myself, nothing that you describe is inherent to theism
Maybe not to theism but Christianity's eschatology speaks for itself.
>To the point, I don't believe that's an issue of philosophical coherency on theism.
It is in so far regardless of whether someone wants to read meaning or meaningfulness into it or not, generally speaking it is within our nature to desire survival (incarnate). Believing in things which are not evidently true (such as theism) may lead someone to act against this inner desire (suicide cults would be an extreme example). If you care about survival like you claim in your boat metaphor then all this should be coherent enough.
>If life is worth clinging to temporarily, why is life not worth clinging to eternally given this chance we have to search for it?
I could think of many good reasons why humanity would want to call it quits at some point. But then at the same time I also never claimed it wasn't worth clinging to and who knows maybe the survival of our species is worth it. But then we still have some 10 billion years until the Sun dies and perhaps 22 billion years until the universe ends and plenty of time left to think, discover, and act if there's something to act on. And if not, as someone who worships the God of Joy, we may as well enjoy it while it lasts.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lbyap wrote
While I sense your disdain for the argument, I'm left wondering: do you take issue with a specific premise?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments