• Art48
    480
    From an article I'm working on.

    The Wall

    Imagine a young person eagerly and optimistically searching for truth. Imagine they eventually reflect as follows. Life is uncertain and, at times, painful. Fatal diseases sometimes take lives, even the lives of babies. During World War II (1940-1945), the prime occupation of many nations was building devices to kill people. During that war, about 70 million people—70,000,000 people—lost their lives: others were injured, physically or mentally. Today, war and the threat of war remain. Weapons exist that can destroy all human life on Earth. As it did with the dinosaurs, the universe may one day wipe all humanity from the face of the Earth.

    On the personal level, I am an infinitesimal speck of matter in an unimaginably vast universe, existing for less than a microsecond compared to the lifetime of a star. If I lack a deep self or my deep self doesn’t survive death, then my existence seems as ephemeral as a water fountain’s spray, as meaningless as a soap bubble.

    We picture these thoughts as forming a “wall”, a barrier that impedes the continued search for truth. The wall may seem intimidating, even terrifying. So, some people leave their search for truth at the wall and simply live their lives day to day.

    Other people retreat and adopt an Old Theology religious faith, perhaps the faith of their childhood, where God has a special love for us, where God protects us and never lays a burden on us which is too hard to bear, where God-inspired writings tell us how to live; where Church and State cooperate to create (as we described above), “a small, snug, secure world, a cocoon—a shield against an unimaginably vast universe.”

    But existing religions disagree and use an inferior way of knowing that often leads to untruth; such religions serve State but not necessarily truth.

    A continued search for truth may require going beyond the wall as New Theology attempts to do. New Theology accepts science’s view of the universe and aims to uncover truth, but truth may or may not provide us with a comfortable worldview or the strength to cope with life.

    Have many individuals stood where we stand now? Did their search for truth lead them to thoughts that seemed true but uncomfortable and subversive of the dominant worldview, subversive even of the very idea of their own existence? Did they see these thoughts as forming a wall, a barrier? Did they then turn back and retreat into the comfort of some Old Theology religion, a religion that puts faith above reason? For if the light of reason uncovers disturbing truths, one solution is to turn off that light. Seen thus, miracle stories, obvious scriptural contradictions, and farfetched dogmas that defy reason are not bugs but features. At weekly meetings, refugees from reason gather and reaffirm their reason-denying beliefs.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    For if the light of reason uncovers disturbing truths, one solution is to turn off that light.Art48

    I can relate to that but only as a disinterested party; I neither wish to be the light nor the agent that turns it off. Point worth noting though is that evil, whatever the hell it is, prefers or rather hides in darkness. The long and short of it, yeah, where there's illumination there could be suffering/pain but rest assured wickedness/cruelty will need to relocate, pronto!
  • Haglund
    802
    For if the light of reason uncovers disturbing truths, one solution is to turn off that lightArt48

    Maybe the much too brightly shining light of reason is the disturbing truth. If you consider the infinitesimal specks in infinite eternity the divine specks the gods wanted all life to be there is a different light shining.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    I think the modernist themes of your article are already familiar and not unlike much comment or journalism written in the mid 20th century. Where are you heading with this?

    I am not sure about New Theology - most churches I knew since the 1970's were pro-science and viewed the Bibles stories as allegories. Biblical literalism is more of a contemporary phenomenon and attached to American fundamentalism or the Koranic literalism of Islam. And you are probably aware that reason is a key tool used by Christian apologists to argue for god - with a long history of Greek philosophy influencing church arguments (ontological and cosmological).

    On the personal level, I am an infinitesimal speck of matter in an unimaginably vast universe, existing for less than a microsecond compared to the lifetime of a star. If I lack a deep self or my deep self doesn’t survive death, then my existence seems as ephemeral as a water fountain’s spray, as meaningless as a soap bubble.Art48

    This is a standard trope we often read. But apart from being a rhetorical device, does it get us anywhere? You could also reverse this idea, as other commentators have done, and argue how special, how extraordinary and improbable it is that on this tiny spec of the universe, conscious life exists - it must be by design, given the odds against it. And each person has a chance to shine brightly and transform the lives of others before they move into the ineffable journey of transcendence. Or whatever. :wink:

    the continued search for truth.Art48

    Maybe you could clarify this point. What do you mean by truth? Or are you referring to the search for meaning?
  • Haglund
    802
    But existing religions disagree and use an inferior way of knowing that often leads to untruth; such religions serve State but not necessarily truth.Art48

    Can't the same be said of science nowadays? N
    Just replace "religion" by "sciences" in my quote of yours:

    "But existing sciences disagree and use an inferior way of knowing that often leads to untruth; such sciences serve State but not necessarily truth
  • Art48
    480
    Tom,

    “And you are probably aware that reason is a key tool used by Christian apologists to argue for god - with a long history of Greek philosophy influencing church arguments (ontological and cosmological).”

    I don’t find the apologist arguments I’ve seen (for example, William Lane Craig) convincing. Apologists IMHO embrace reason only in so far as it supports dogma.
    Here’s a YouTube clip discussed this further.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ene62RkIwNo

    “This is a standard trope we often read. But apart from being a rhetorical device, does it get us anywhere?”

    It describes part of the Wall.

    “This is a standard trope we often read. But apart from being a rhetorical device, does it get us anywhere? You could also reverse this idea, as other commentators have done, and argue how special, how extraordinary and improbable it is that on this tiny spec of the universe, conscious life exists - it must be by design, given the odds against it.”

    The intelligent design argument is an example of using reason only in so far as it supports dogma. If God designed the universe so that conscious life can exist, then God also designed the universe so that childhood cancer could exist.

    By truth I mean correspondence with reality.
  • Art48
    480
    Haglund,

    But existing religions disagree and use an inferior way of knowing that often leads to untruth; such religions serve State but not necessarily truth. — Art48
    Can't the same be said of science nowadays?

    No.

    Religions use an inferior way of knowing - faith and authority – and so cannot agree. Christianity can’t even agree on how to be saved. And religion has dogma, which cannot be rejected.

    Science uses a better way of knowing – loosely called the scientific method. Science converges to reality. Scientists throughout the world accept the sciences of chemistry, biology, etc. while religions have had thousands of years to converge, but haven’t. Ask a Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist what happens after death and you’ll get contradictory answers.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    I don’t find the apologist arguments I’ve seen (for example, William Lane Craig) convincing. Apologists IMHO embrace reason only in so far as it supports dogma.Art48

    I am not convinced either, but they use reason, that's the point which most atheists deny. The more highbrow of them are serious academics - Alvin Plantinga, Bentley Hart... Still doesn't mean you will be convinced (nor am I) but the point is they are engaged in reason and philosophy, not magic.

    By truth I mean correspondence with reality.Art48

    I think you may need to explore the correspondence theory of truth (and others). This kind of Matt Dillahunty notion will only get a person so far in philosophy. Reality has yet to be defined and if you define it as truth you enter circularity.

    The intelligent design argument is an example of using reason only in so far as it supports dogma. If God designed the universe so that conscious life can exist, then God also designed the universe so that childhood cancer could exist.Art48

    Yes but you are only arguing against a literalist fundamentalist Christian conception god. Shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? Theists and deists are far more diverse.

    Are you an Ayn Rand objectivist?
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Did they see these thoughts as forming a wall, a barrier?Art48

    Not really. Why would the size of the universe or the duration of a star be seen 'a barrier'? Does size matter that much?

    According to the path of science,
    The stars are a thousand times
    More helpless than you.

    -- Omar Khayyam
  • javi2541997
    5.9k
    Why would the size of the universe or the duration of a star be seen 'a barrier'?Olivier5

    Interesting question. To be honest, I see it as a barrier. Since the moment that our lives are limited we tend to see everything with limitations in terms of time, age, ability, understanding, etc...
    It can affect us because it shows how weak we are towards universe.
    For example: "A trip to Pluto takes 35 years of our life" it is literally a barrier of our capacities and nobody can pursue the trip yet.
  • universeness
    6.3k

    I like your OP, I think it's well balanced and I agree with the main points you make, especially regarding theism.
    I think many humans build many walls and help to build many others. Some they use to wall themselves in for their own protection' Their own walled garden, it helps allay their fears.
    Wall building is all about fear is it not?
    The hopeful note is that humans can also tare down walls just like the one that used to separate East and West Berlin. We can also climb over them or tunnel under them.
    One of our greatest strengths and also one of our greatest sources of conflict is the fact that we have such diverse viewpoints. I think each of us has access to powerful mental hammers and many mental bricks and supplies of mortar. So wall erecting and wall deconstruction will continue with gusto!
  • RussellA
    1.8k
    At weekly meetings, refugees from reason gather and reaffirm their reason-denying beliefs.Art48

    You are defining "reason" and "truth" in a limited way, as being dependent upon what is on the other side of the "wall". You say that reason is the attempt to look past the "wall" at what may be uncomfortable truths.

    But why cannot reason also be remaining this side of the "wall" and accepting beliefs that not only do we believe to be true but also are comfortable with, and which, when all said and done, do pragmatically work ?
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Since the moment that our lives are limited we tend to see everything with limitations in terms of time, age, ability, understanding, etc...
    It can affect us because it shows how weak we are towards universe.
    For example: "A trip to Pluto takes 35 years of our life" it is literally a barrier of our capacities and nobody can pursue the trip yet.
    javi2541997

    It would be a barrier if one wanted to go to Pluto. The motivations for such a trip are unclear to me. I would rather be an eagle, or Superman, or Spiderman (he's funnier) but that too is impossible. It shows how weak I am compared to comic book heroes.
  • javi2541997
    5.9k


    Conclusion: we are weak whatever we are compared with!
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    Religions use an inferior way of knowing - faith and authority – and so cannot agree. Christianity can’t even agree on how to be saved. And religion has dogma, which cannot be rejected.

    Science uses a better way of knowing – loosely called the scientific method. Science converges to reality. Scientists throughout the world accept the sciences of chemistry, biology, etc. while religions have had thousands of years to converge, but haven’t. Ask a Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist what happens after death and you’ll get contradictory answers.
    Art48

    religion vs science should be viewed as:
    1. religion - how things should be
    2. science - how things are

    That's a fundamental difference.

    By truth I mean correspondence with reality.Art48
    Shouldn't truth answer all of the questions rather than being limited to reality?

    for example religious "truth" (in Christianity) answers questions about salvation and purpose of existence but it does not answer scientific questions.

    Therefore I think it's mandatory to first agree on what is truth?
    It's impossible to search for truth without first agreeing on what such truth should answer.

    I think truth must be universal rather than limited to anything.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Conclusion: we are weak whatever we are compared with!javi2541997

    Each other?
    A pigeon?
    A non-existent god?
    Your earlier self?
    An individual human can be very very strong indeed both mentally and physically.
    Our mental prowess created every superhero which has ever existed and every god, human imagination is one of the strongest forces in the Universe imo.
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    But we are larger than atoms. We can look down on them. Ho ho ho you atoms are so small, so inconsequential... (says he while nuclear Armageddon looms)
  • javi2541997
    5.9k
    An individual human can be very very strong indeed both mentally and physically.universeness

    Oh boy, you have a very optimistic view of humans. I don't feel myself more powerful than a pigeon since the moment when I have issues as depression or existentialism. These states of mind can induce some persons to commit suicide. So... in this context, a pigeon is more powerful than me at least emotionally
  • Olivier5
    6.2k
    Lao Tzu has said: Compare not what is not comparable, lest you mix the sweet apple with the sour orange to make a sweet-and-sour sauce.
  • javi2541997
    5.9k


    I always feel that Lao Tzu has a magnificent answer to every philosophical debate. Incredible the power of millennium poem
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Oh boy, you have a very optimistic view of humans. I don't feel myself more powerful than a pigeon since the moment when I have issues as depression or existentialism. These states of mind can induce some persons to commit suicide. So... in this context, a pigeon is more powerful than me at least emotionallyjavi2541997

    I hate to throw an old favourite at you Javi but you asked for it!!!!

bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.