I apologize for my short absence. You state,
I suspect that you're conflating all secular worldviews with nihilism, because nihilism is the only worldview that says that the entire universe is meaningless. That the rest of the universe is indifferent to us -- that's a more precise formulation than the one you gave, I think -- is entirely consistent with the idea that there is meaning on Earth. Moreover, both are consistent with a secular worldview. Therefore, you have not described a "problem of evil" in anything that resembles the theological use of the word.
I might as well plead guilty on conflation now, I have constructed my worldview on many thoughtful ideas and thinkers, I attempt to be consistent. I mean all is meaningless when I use the term in this discussion. Even humans ability to subjectively overcome it. To me our wills ability to overcome it is like a very unhappy and miserable person who drinks and becomes drunk and then argues how happy he is. The problem of nihilism isn't precisely or directly analogous to the problem of evil and I wasn't being overly precise, it is a problem that seemingly turns the worldview on its head such as the problem of evil for theism.
I don't see why nihilism should pose such a problem for me. If I simply recognize that my values are just that -- mine, not the universe's -- then I can happily retain my values without the specter of meaninglessness haunting me. I enjoy life as it is; I have music, love, good food, wine, and LOLcats. I don't see why I'd need to conjure up a Plan of Salvation to keep myself from despair.
My Schopenhauer analogy is coming closer to home. If you don't see it I don't suppose it does pose a problem for you. Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. (Chesterton), sorry my daughter and I are reading him. Nietzche's madman of course was screaming it to all on those on the streets and the café's, they didn't see it either at that time, and then many did, then it faded again. In a respectful manner I pose, fallacies don't stop being fallacies once they are fashionable (Chesterton). Maybe I am like the madman, or maybe I am like one of those silly french guys smoking thin cigarettes and sitting at a café spouting off philosophy that is meaningless rather than the universe as, I could be wrong. Theism can't be understood and I suppose nihilism either unless one recognizes what is wrong with the world. I was struck (reading with my daughter again) what I had read years ago, that Chesterton won an essay contest in which the question was posed "What is wrong with the World?", what Chesterton wrote was all but two words and he won, I find it in stark contrast to your individual position, he wrote "I am."
I suppose today you might win with "everybody else" who can't will meaning for themselves.
Well, then we are at an impasse, because I have self-reflected, and still see no reason to believe that life after death makes life more profound. I even used to believe that it would. That I don't and you do amounts to nothing more than "He said, she said".
Impasse does become unavoidable, we can just put all our cards on the table and the chips fall where they may. I at least leave the table as friends. But, let me try a thought experiment in return for you, let's say a pill is discovered in which taking the pill on January 1st of each year guarantees you will live one more year - if you stop taking the pill you will die that year. At what year is your finite year of life no less profound than the next and voluntarily you fail to take the pill?
How can you know that heaven is brings profundity if you don't know what it is? Is heaven simply defined as something that effects profundity? That's not very careful thinking. I suspect we're dealing with a "magic walnut" here.
A couple things. First I have been pondering the "magic walnut" idea you and EA have posed. I am not sure yet if I have concluded my thinking on it. Part of me says it is just a semantical riddle. You can call my God a magic walnut or burrito or God, there is a great Hans Kung quote I have failed to find, but will post for you when I do regarding this. You see, when I am posed the question by atheists that I am just one God shy of being an atheist just like them and that when it comes to Zeus and all the other Gods I am atheistic, my response is no, I believe in all the Gods as expressions of the God I believe in even Zeus and I think the magic walnut is a similar trick, not sure yet though. You are correct no concept of heaven as a definition creates a problem, but my modest epistemology is built on basic perceptions at a bottom level and then moves to impressions from there. The impression of heaven as eternal life, no pain as in the physical pain we suffer here, a reconciliation of ourselves and wrongdoings, salvation and redemption isn't totally without definition and conception. I am reminded of my wife having an impression that something is wrong with our daughter and we have to go home, my curt response to her of, don't be silly and define what is exactly wrong was just that silly, something wrong is still a concept. Heaven as eternal life alone is a concept. Peter Berger small but profound book "Rumors of Angels" presents a lot of these "signals of transcendence" as he calls them or impressions that I call them very well.
(Regarding the anniliation concept)Sure, but you're going to have to explain a little more why this matters.
It matters because is your response simply psychology of subjective john stuart millness or is it based in reality in some even modest empirical way, and the same of course goes for me.
(mik)I am glad we find agreement with part of our natural condition. I wouldn't expect a transcendent or different metaphysical place after death to come without skepticism or dissatisfaction at times as well.
(John)If that's really the case, then I fail to see what makes heaven special.
I am going to let you answer the pill question and then I will elaborate.
Calling it a God of Love doesn't do any legwork. There's no reason to think that a God of Love could not foist meaning on us, unless such a God's meaning is congruent with the meaning we would have ascribed to our existence anyway. In that case, a God would be moot.
Yes it does if love is defined as a will towards our personal growth, development and fulfillment as individuals as well as members of a greater community. Foisting would violate our ability to individually grow which wouldn't be loving. Also, there would be no incoherence if that meaning is found inherent in reality itself, more objectively (but I don't like the subjective/objective dichotomy) and we discover it with the impressions that God gives us, we would be built to function properly when in tune with that inherent meaning. God would then be loving us by allowing us to find that inherent meaning and again foisting would be problematic.
Mikwut, you're a charitable guy. I hope that you're willing to grant me that I did not "expressly state" what you said I did. If you believe that the conditions of my thought experiment would lead to the inescapable conclusion that war is the meaning of our existence, then your "No, it wouldn't imply it," is not correct, because I was using 'imply' in its sense as a logical operator.
Sorry for being trite, you did not expressly state that.
The confusion here is apparently arising because I think there is a difference here between the words "meaning" and "purpose", while you don't. Maybe we're just using "meaning" in different ways. I think that for the purposes of this discussion, "meaning" should be construed as something like "significance". It's true that "meaning" can also mean "purpose", but I think that usage obfuscates the real meat of the discussion here by begging the teleological question.
I tend to agree. I don't divorce purpose completely from meaning. Significance is salient, well done. But significance is also interrupted if one is violating the very purpose of their creation. How significant is it for a spoon to be doing the job of a knife, I suppose pretty significant if there are no knives.
Well, until you provide some reason for me to believe that it would absurd, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Odd, I thought that would be my retort, but maybe its fair for you to require more reason. I think you have said as much, that you subjectively form the opinion of satisfying meaning in your life. Fair enough. My construction (which could be wrong) bases itself on an impression of reality that if correct is part and parcel of reality, I at least no less speculate to that, you honestly state reality beyond your own subjective will and construction of meaning be damned. Again, I could be wrong and will admit my guilt if you again present it to me. Inherentness might be part of our misunderstanding as well.
Depending on how you define secular humanism, I'm not a secular humanist. I don't think there is a "meaning of life" any more than there is a "meaning of the solar system". Nor do I think there's anything missing in that scenario.
I apologize. I used it in a very general sense and didn't mean to disrespect your individual thought. I might be contradicting myself but a common response I get to the nihilism is saying there is no meaning is a meaningful statement so nihilism is self-contradictory, aside from every thought failing in this regard, doesn't saying there is no meaning of life saying something of 'significance' that would then qualify for meaning?
I think you're imputing something to me that I do not hold. I believe it's possible and desirable that humanity as a whole could have a meaning. The difference between me and the typical theist is that I believe that this meaning would be created from the bottom-up, by ourselves, and not dictated from a higher being.
I would say I appreciate and respect that and should all theists. Because even if my construction of thought corresponds to reality than each of us discovering it is part and parcel of it. Disbelief would then have its place and a valuable one at that. And if I am wrong, I certainly need the shepherds of disbelief to guide me. I am serious.
I appreciate the careful thought and congeniality you're putting into this conversation.
As do I yours John, anyone who cares enough to dialogue these matters as yourself and the others on this board express real concern for them as they are part of human condition, disrespecting other thought disrepects ourselves.
my best, mikwut