i don't much care for modern country music
...it can be annoying and very limited, but they often have some good lyrics. Anyway, here's an example of a song I don't care for musically, but I like the words:
I like the idea of "live like you were dying" because, guess what: we are, all of us.
Most of the people I love are "living for eternity." That means that nothing in the here & now matters except inasmuch as it relates to cosmic/universal/eternal truths & standards. Prioritizing (or even meddling with) things that have no eternal impact is considered a misdirection of time & energy -- a gross waste of time at best, and ultimately tragically shallow & spiritually fatal.
But what if this is all there is? To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens (a bright-but-unhappy-and-often-unpleasant man), We're shot out of our mother's womb as if from a cannon, headed for a door studded with nails; the trick is to make something meaningful or ironic out of our lives in the brief moment we have.
My point is that we're all going to be dead soon. (Cheers!) Some people view this idea with dread, or are convinced they've found a get-out-of-death-free card -- and to each his own, I say -- but I've seen no evidence that we do anything after we die except decompose.
So in the meantime, turn that frown upside down -- you're gonna be dead sooner than you expected, but in the meantime, look! You're alive! Yay! Don't worry, be happy. And for heaven's sake stop worrying about what other people think, what you're wearing, what other people are wearing, and also 90% of the other absurdly irrelevant things you worry about. It's not worth it, and in 100 yrs not only will it not matter, nobody will even remember it.
Just sayin.
posted by Rob @ 3:53:00 PM
21 comments
21 Comments:
"Most of the people I love are "living for eternity." That means that nothing in the here & now matters except inasmuch as it relates to cosmic/universal/eternal truths & standards."
Is "living for eternity" mutually exclusive to having fun? Since I love many of the same people you love, I find this post puzzling. Do they not enjoy themselves? Don't they laugh and sing and play basketball, goof around, and do sometimes outlandish things just for the sheer enjoyment of it? Didn't Jesus say, "I came that they may have life and have it abundently"?
"Let sorrows of the mind be banished from this place/Religion never was designed to make our pleasures less? --Isaac Watts
"Because we love something else more than this world we love even this world better than those who know no other." --C.S. Lewis
I like to think that I have enough time left to do something that would make someone remember me in 100 years. Not for internal cosmic life purpose, but I would love to leave legacy behind in a lives and harts of my children and grand children.
I don’t know about not caring what I wear. My grandchildren will say “she always dressed remarkably!” (Just kidding, maybe…)
"I've seen no evidence that we do anything after we die except decompose." Not sure how one could have any evidence as you're meaning it....someone with faith already has it and someone without can't be convinced, so....
agree with Unca: faith doesn't diminish one's enjoyment of life at all....only adds another, deeper dimension.
"It's not worth it, and in 100 yrs not only will it not matter, nobody will even remember it."
Unless it's your child embarrassing you at a dinner with friends! That one people are gonna put in the books.
Hey are you coming to my party? I’m only inviting people that are not afraid to do stuff in fear of where they might end up after this life is over. We can all party and live it up like we are dying only to decompose. Then we can talk about what all of the people living for eternity are missing.
A good time was had by all.
Unca & JR, you make a good point that faith and enjoyment of life aren’t mutually exclusive. While I do think many people of faith tend to view pleasure as suspect, in general, they absolutely enjoy themselves. There are just a couple of things that don’t work very well for me about the whole deal:
1) The rules for life as understood by most people of faith are quite restrictive when compared against the vast potential of the human experience, and
2) When one deals with Universal Truths, it hampers your ability to let other people live their lives without judgment; it tends to make one concerned about a lot of things other people do that should be none of anyone else’s business.
JR, I think it’s a bit of an over-generalization (and possibly a bit disingenuous) to say that faith doesn’t diminish one’s enjoyment of life at all, but just adds another dimension. I can tell you that it would be diminishing my joy a great deal right now if I still had it...
As to evidence: if i infer correctly, JR, your point was about the futility of arguing about this kind of thing. And I agree that argument/debate is pointless without common ground to start from. But I will say that I don’t think people of faith actually have evidence; they have faith instead – i think that’s what faith means: “...evidence (ie, conviction) of things not seen as yet”. And more power to ‘em, I’m not criticizing their choices in that regard.
But the fact that we don’t have any evidence doesn’t logically imply that we *can’t* have evidence – sure we could. It only seems like “evidence” is a silly thing to expect when viewed from within the context of faith. I think it kind of goes like this:
I believe in the afterlife.
No one has any evidence of an afterlife.
The afterlife must be something you can’t see evidence of, so why would you ask for it?
Whereas faithless heathens ;-) like me would say “The afterlife must be something someone made up.” And so would the person of religious faith, if we were discussing any other topic, like UFO’s or ESP or astrology or spoon-bending or whatever.
Saleswoman,
I take your point, but the main point is for each of us to learn to not stress so much about our own stuff; it’s not very seemly for person A to to use this to say to person B “You shouldn’t worry so much about what I did to embarrass you...” That would be for person B to work out, I think.
BB,
I think that was irony, but hard to be sure in this format, since voice tone etc don’t come thru :-) In any case, my main point was that we should enjoy whatever days we have rather than worrying so much. I got a little distracted with my theories about how ppl of faith don’t know how to enjoy themselves as much as heathens do... ;-)
Thx 2 all for comments.
The reference to proof, as far as not being able to have any, is that until you are dead and either a)only decomposing and therefore unaware anyway or b)finding out you were wrong about the final result only being decomposition, there's no way to have "evidence." As far as I know, there's no one walking around who has died and is now here who can say: "yep. only decomposition. Live it up!"
As to being disingenuous: it seems a wee bit bold, perhaps, for someone with no faith to tell a person with faith that he or she isn't honestly assessing his/her own enjoyment of life---maybe especially an apostate who found the stricture of faith untenable with regard to his own situation?
And as far as levels of enjoyment or quality of enjoyment---I think there's a tendency for people to confuse "fun" and "contentment" or "fun" and "joy". Sure there's a certain delirium in never saying no to yourself. For awhile. But like parents even learn, a child with no boundaries does not stay happy very long. Time generally bears that out.
Outside of all that---live like you were dying! It's a great perspective for everyone
With regard to Jay are: yes.
“A child with no boundaries does not stay happy very long. Time generally bears that out”
I agree Jay are. That was kind of the point I was trying to make in my comment.
Hey this is off the topic a little, but did you know that Tim McGraw is the son of Tug McGraw the pitcher of the Mets & Phillies? (Maybe I’m the only one that didn’t know) I guess growing up Tim didn’t know that Tug was his father.
Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_McGraw
I remember Tug McGraw very well. He used to come in in relief and beat the Cubs.
I did know that about Tim and Tug (gotta love the name) but I don't know why. Probably because I read People Magazine. Tug was hopefully a better pitcher than Tim a songwriter (agree with Rob about modern country music; gimme the old stuff any day). Tim's cute, tho! Does that count for something?
Yes, Tug and everybody else beat the Cubs. I did know that Tim and Tug were son and father. I remember when Tug would get the third out on a strike out, he would beat his glove on his thigh as he was going to the dugout.
Thanks all for interesting comments. Didn’t know about Tug & Tim being related. Cool.
Couple things re the original topic:
JR, the key thing is that you say “AFAIK there’s no one walking around…” etc. That assumption about the availability of evidence is couched within a pre-established definition of how the afterlife is (ie, unknowable from this side). To the believer, the afterlife is impossible to know about or have evidence of because that’s the only way to reconcile a) the existence of the afterlife with b) the lack of evidence of the afterlife.
But we *could* have evidence: dead people could send us messages. They could talk to us, appear to us, make stuff happen in our world. If that seems a silly idea, it’s only because it never happens; it’s not that it’s foolish to ask to see it.
And we *can* prove decomposition; that’s the observable phenomenon. We can’t prove that’s *all* there is (ie, there’s no afterlife), that’s trying to prove a negative. But by the rules of logic that we mostly live by, I shouldn’t have to, any more than I should have to prove the non-existence of gay latino leprechauns in order to say I don’t believe in them.
Sometimes it feels like people are saying: the fact that there’s no evidence of the afterlife shows that the afterlife is just like I said: unprovable. Which is circular, like saying “The fact that there’s no evidence of a conspiracy shows the conspiracy is working...”
According to the bible, people apparently do have the ability to appear back on this side (Samuel, Moses, Elijah, Lazarus), but it never happens.
Anyway, I know that logic/reason/proof are not what religious faith is all about, so maybe I’m wasting your time with all this. Just saying what I think. Thanks for being willing to discuss without getting your shorts all in a knot about it. :-)
On the issue of kids and needing boundaries, I completely agree with y’all. And I think people are happier when they operate within a belief structure that gives meaning to their actions, as opposed to chaotic and purposeless self-indulgence. But it’s a bit strong to extrapolate from that a general rule that “fun” is bad and rules are good.
As to “fun” vs “joy”, I do think it’s useful to differentiate between a game of beach volleyball and the birth of a child, but I found (for myself) that sometimes I was telling myself a story about how I felt rather than honestly assessing how I felt and articulating it.
BTW, you’re right that it’s a bit bold (and not too reasonable) of me to project my experience on other people; sorry for that, my bad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real quickly, because I read this quickly and don't have much time at the present moment and would like to read it more thoroughly and think a bit before maybe making a more intelligible response: overall, just wanted to say that I have no problem with someone who doesn't have faith or chooses not to believe in anything besides that we decompose (of course there's evidence of that piece); choosing not to believe is no more a proven or provable certainty than choosing TO believe, that's all (if that makes sense?)
Definitely do not believe, as a complete truth, that "fun is bad and rules are good". I do believe, tho, that rules ARE good, for the most part, and I also definitely have known plenty of folk who seem to have an underlying belief that fun is bad. I feel bad for them. I do believe that a prime goal of the pursuit of fun can distract from things that might ultimately prove to be more important.
It's definitely not useful or beneficial to pretend to be happy in a place that one is really NOT happy. On the flip-side, sometimes it can be selfish and self-centered to only be concerned about whether me myself and I are at optimum happiness levels. I suppose there must be a decent balance? Maybe this doesn't make sense.
It's possible none of this made sense since I didn't think it through much (some other things you touched on that I wouldn't mind responding to). Thanks for continuing the conversation. No knotted shorts here.
with some trepidation, as the profit factor for this conversation is waning... a couple thoughts for your consideration:
- To an unbeliever, faith appears to be what you've painted it to be: a refuge from scientific evidence (or lack of evidence) contrary to what is believed. a "poor man's evidence" if you will... resorted to because there's no "real" evidence to point to.
- In reality, faith is a different thing-- a necessary thing-- that addresses something empirical evidence could not.
- I believe faith in God, faith in the plan of salvation in which we believe, is-- by design-- mutually exclusive with "proof" or empirical evidence. To clarify this, consider the alternative... what if it weren't? What if, in today's world, we could prove that there was an afterlife, and science could demonstrate that everyone has an immortal soul? Then we as humans would have no choice but to start planning for and focusing on our own post-death experience, regardless of how we felt about God. To do otherwise would be foolhardy, even suicidal. The pragmatic thing to do would be to spend our short lives "living for eternity." But God doesn't want a group of pragmatists who feel they've no option because He's held a gun to their heads... He wants those who serve out of love. And the only way to do that is to ensure that "proof" doesn't exist, so that faith begets love and vice versa. Only faith can do this. Empirical evidence can't; in fact, empirical evidence would "wreck" it. :-)
- I don't think this 'problem' with empirical, or rather physical evidence per se is a timeless absolute... but it's very applicable to us today. Physical miracles occurred in Biblical times, but to a polytheistic populace in which no one had access to real education, the scientific method, peer review, or verifiable documentation/recording methods... they wouldn't have had the mind-bending impact they would have on people today. For the most part, they'd have been perceived as neither unique nor world-view challenging, nor "proof"... so it would have been a reasonable way for God to start working in people's hearts.
- The difference between faith in God versus belief in other paranormal phenomena you reference (UFOs, ESP, spoon-bending, etc.) is that there IS no inherent reason for the lack of evidence of those (except that there isn't any). Someone could posit the existence of an alien race that's so advanced they can easily avoid detection by humans, but that would be a scenario constructed after the fact, in light of lack of empirical evidence. As opposed to faith in God, where empirical evidence today would be incompatible with the "scenario" we believe. This "scenario" (God's plan for salvation, His desire for a family that serves out of love) was not constructed to accommodate a lack of physical evidence... it was part of the story from the beginning.
JR, i understand and agree with 90% of your last post. The exception is the statement that “...choosing not to believe is no more a proven or provable certainty than choosing TO believe...” I could use that same statement about astrology, fairies, ghosts, UFO’s, unicorns, the loch ness monster, anything. But i’m pretty sure you think at least some of those are just stories, made up a long time ago and kept alive by people’s desire to believe. IOW, I think most believers think those things are silly, for precisely the same reasons non-believers are skeptical about the afterlife...
Cal, I’m not sure the physical-evidence-would-obviate-the-need-for-faith idea jibes too well with a lot of the conversion stories in the bible, nor with the idea of “a cloud of witnesses” or “many infallible proofs”. And altho you’re right that ppl were superstitious and ignorant back then, i’m pretty sure plagues, virgin births, raising the dead, etc would carry a pretty heavy proof-quotient.
In any case, I view both the alien-race story and the physical-evidence-would-wreck-it idea as equivalent: painting bulls-eyes around the bullet holes.
Declaring that the alien bulls-eye is obviously painted, but another bulls-eye was here before (possibly because *this* bulls-eye is clearly much more bulls-eye-like and the bullet hole is so perfectly centered in it), doesn’t make it so – those would be just declarations.
For my money if you want a *really* convincing explanation of the situation, one that requires no elaboration, no apologetics, is devastatingly simple, accounts for everything, and is 100% consistent with observable reality, “that bullet missed” does it for me...
And i realize you’re just explaining, not trying to prove anything (ie, declarations are all you’re claiming to make) – but i suspect it’s a fine line to walk.
The problem is that it’s very difficult to explain religious faith without attempting to answer “why i believe” – and as soon as you’re in the realm of “why”, you’re going to have problems, because “why” is about cause & effect, which are the bailiwick of reason/logic. And by the rules of reason, most things faith tells us don’t make much sense.
When i had faith, whenever i attempted to venture into “why” something should make sense, or “why” i believed something, i eventually lost.
Anyway, thanks much for well-thought-out and polite comments on a subject a lot of people are unable to discuss without getting upset...
sorry for delayed response... was offline for over a week.
just quickly...
- "...i’m pretty sure plagues, virgin births, raising the dead, etc would carry a pretty heavy proof-quotient..."
The point is that evidence (especially non-verifiable evidence) of supernatural power wouldn't have the world-view changing impact on folks then as it would today.
- "...I realize you're... not trying to prove anything"... a fine line... attempting to answer 'why I believe'..."
Hmm. First, clearly not trying to prove anything, correct. Nor in any way attempting to answer 'why i believe', which is also entirely unprovable and has nothing to do with what I wrote. What I wrote was more about explaining why I'm in no way troubled by a lack of physical evidence for what I believe; that in fact, I see a lack of physical evidence as a natural, even necessary, consequence of what I believe.
- "...if you want a *really* convincing explanation of the situation, one that ...accounts for everything...is 100% consistent with observable reality..."
Hm, that seems a pretty dramatic overstatement of our current understanding of the origins, or even the early history, of the universe. The "singularity" is still shorthand for "then a miracle happens". And even if we ultimately arrive at a theory that satisfactorily explains this, AND the reason the 50 or so universal constants (c, G, Planck, Hubble, etc.) are the values they are, as opposed to any of the infinity^^50 other values that would preclude the existence of the universe... we're still only explaining why an existing system behaves as it does. We're not explaining how it got here. Which, to be clear, is NOT to assert that you must concede that God created it, any more than you must concede that it's on the back of a turtle. But just pointing out that if you're looking for something that "requires no elaboration, no apologetics, is devastatingly simple, accounts for everything, and is 100% consistent with observable reality", you've got a ways to go yet.
You may have confidence that science will ultimately be able to answer the actual "origin" (vs. early history) questions, but these are questions that extend beyond the origins of time itself, beyond the realm of cause and subsequent effect... and are conceded by most cosmologists to be outside the domain of science (multiverse or loop/bounce theories do nothing but push the problem back). And you have no more evidence for your belief that science will be able to extend into that domain than someone who believes the Easter Bunny created the universe.
- "Anyway, thanks...without getting upset"
Likewise.
...evidence (especially non-verifiable evidence) of supernatural power wouldn't have the world-view changing impact on folks then as it would today.
Sorry, I'm missing both what the above sentence is saying, and the point of it.
...I see a lack of physical evidence as a natural, even necessary, consequence of what I believe.
In my mind, it's basically *any* evidence, not just *physical* evidence. But be that as it may, couldn't that approach be used to defend belief in *anything* -- Zeus, for example -- reducing belief to an arbitrary choice among choices that from a logical standpoint are all equally valid? Ie, reducing God's logical value to that of the easter bunny? Most religious people i talk to have *lot's* of reasons for why they believe...
...that seems a pretty dramatic overstatement of our current understanding of the origins...the universe.
i'll cop to getting a little dramatic about explaining all observable reality. but my point is twofold:
1) there's a difference between saying "I can't explain everything i see" and saying "i believe in things no one can see."
2) when we're talking about the things no one (yet) understands (eg, singularities, planck's constant, whatever), "We don't know yet" is as valid as "God made it." Which leaves the rest of observable reality (ie, the part science or psychology purports to explain); here is where faith-based theories (sometimes) require mental/philosophical contortionism to accept, and the simpler atheistic account fits with never a wrinkle (boots up to the thigh)...
... you have no more evidence for your belief that science will be able to extend into that domain than someone who believes the Easter Bunny created the universe.
True. But if the past is any predictor of the future, my money's on science, since that list of unknowns used to include thunder, rainbows, clouds, and winter, and now it doesn't.
Go (if u want to). :-)
I'm missing... the point...
Okay, will try again. Sorry if I'm oversimplifying... it seems an easy point to me. Pointing out that recorded/documented miracles today, proving the existence of God or perhaps of an afterlife... would dramatically change the worldview of the scientific community and the populace in general, would be readily accessible to all, and would essentially inspire the world at large to "shape up" in anticipation of said afterlife. As opposed to unrecordable miracles performed before eyewitnesses in pre-scientific times... when folks essentially took as a given that a) God, or gods, existed, b) supernatural events, whether one has ever seen one personally or not, are part of the order of things. Miracles wouldn't have the same worldview-altering impact then as they would today. And without recording equipment and a real scientific community to validate/challenge reported miracles, folks who didn't see them directly could more easily explain them away, if they were so inclined. Basic point is simple, specifically: my assertion that scientific/empirical evidence (ie, raw, incontrovertable proof to all the world) would inspire action that is better inspired by faith, doesn't really apply in a pre-scientific environment.
...couldn't that approach be used to defend belief in *anything*...Zeus...reducing God's logical value...
You keep trying to make this about "why I believe". This has nothing to do with that. There's a profound difference between "this is why I believe" and "this is why I don't disbelieve". "Why I believe" has to do with portions of my own experience that are not provable, wouldn't stand up in a court of law, and are not derived from a framework of logic. As such, any attempt to justify "why I believe" from a logical standpoint would be doomed to failure. That's not what we're about here.
This discussion started with your assertion that "I see no evidence that...", essentially as the reason for your lack of belief. IOW, "I disbelieve because there's no evidence". My response has been, "Okay, but just FTR, the kind of evidence you refer to isn't really compatible with what we believe anyway. So I would never expect to see it, it's non-existence doesn't trouble me, and in no way do I see its absence as an indication that what I believe isn't true."
...faith-based theories... require mental/philosophical contortionism to accept...
Interesting. I know what you're referring to. But to a believer, the biggest contortion of them all is to assert, as athiests do, that "it" all came from nothing. As noted earlier, the best the possible future theories can do is describe an existing system. The don't even try to tackle origin. See next point.
...past is any predictor... my money's on science... used to include...and now it doesn't.
No no no ("you did just then"). We're not talking about God-of-the-Gaps stuff, that we just can't explain yet. Like cancer, or black holes, or maybe even the singularity. I'd say good money is on science there, at least wrt the first 2. I'm talking about the BEFORE part. If you ask a cosmologist where the "big bang stuff" came from, what he tells you will boil down to one of 3 things: 1) the question is meaningless, 2) the question is outside the domain of science, or 3) it came from a big bounce/loop/crunch (ie, a prior universe/universes of some kind). #3 doesn't answer the origin question, it just pushes it back. #'s 1 and 2 don't mean "we don't know yet"... they mean "the answer is unknowable". Or, to an atheist, "it just was". Which is why I say, if you're expecting an answer from science there, your money is probably as safe on the Easter Bunny.
Bryan,
This was so long ago, but I wondered if you'd mind another comment since I'm late to catch up with you... You easily discussed when you "had faith". I wonder if you can remember the times, when you weren't feeling contorted or repressed, that you found consolation, wisdom, peace in a situation where there had been none previously. The greatest "evidence" to me is that God can change our feelings, our attitudes if we let him. The peace that passes understanding. Hard to put to words but undeniable when it happens to you.
My uninvited 2 cents. Simplistic in the face of all your comments but maybe meant to be that way.
Hope you're doing well and many good vibes your way.
Cal:
Re miracles: From my POV, the miracles in the bible are precisely this: something that should be impossible, that overcomes the limitations of natural law, a demonstration of God’s existence, power, and legitimacy in a way that’s unambiguous and incontrovertable, which I see as being rather on the evidence end of the spectrum (as opposed to the faith end) no matter what era one lives in.
It sounds like you’re saying that supernatural events used to be considered part of the order of things and God/god’s existence was a given, so miracles weren’t really that miraculous or effective as evidence – they still took some measure of faith to accept. If I infer correctly, what then would be the point of a miracle? Assuming water into wine was more than just Jesus doing the groom a favor, what was it if not “evidence” of his power?
To say that miracles would be just *too* powerful nowadays seems, well, like an excuse.
I infer two ideas here:
1) that God doesn’t want to be too obvious, and
2) the point of His modesty is that altho He wants devoted followers, he doesn’t want ones who love and believe in Him for a *reason* (ie, He wants “faith” not in the sense of trust/confidence/reliance, but in the sense of commitment without evidence).
Am I mistaken? And if not, are either of those ideas scriptural?
You keep trying to make this about "why I believe". This has nothing to do with that. There's a profound difference between "this is why I believe" and "this is why I don't disbelieve".
Ok, then what I’m saying is why can’t I use the same reasoning to say “this is why I don’t disbelieve in Zeus”?
... But to a believer, the biggest contortion of them all is to assert, as athiests do, that "it" all came from nothing.
Believers commonly put words in atheists’ mouths, and then argue against those words. Atheists don’t necessarily say everything came from nothing. A more accurate representation of a typical atheist’s position is “I don’t know about origin, but It All Came From Nothing and Your God Made It are not the only two possibilities in the universe. IOW, I don’t know what holds the cosmos together, but I don’t believe the world sits on a turtle’s back.”
If you ask a cosmologist where the "big bang stuff" came from...if you're expecting an answer from science there, your money is probably as safe on the Easter Bunny.
There’s the stuff we can know/prove, and the stuff that we can’t know or prove.
Science continually shifts things from unknown to known, and does a better job of explaining those things in a way that jibes with what I can confirm with my own senses.
When it comes to things nobody can prove, having words to say that explain things in no way means those words are a better answer than no answer. “God made it” doesn’t mean all that much in a practical sense and feels to me a lot like “pushing the answer back” as I think you put it.
Peace, and much love. :-)
Amy:
I do remember feeling consolation, wisdom, peace in situations where there had been none previously. The difficulty (in terms of faith) came when I was able to understand/explain those feelings in a way that was practical rather than mystical.
Many good vibes to you and yours too :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home