lew@ihuxr.UUCP (11/04/83)
Jeff Sargent asks: "Is it not an insult to tell people that they are basically the same as primordial ooze, that they exist only by chance, and that therefore they have neither value nor meaning?" This is a non sequitur. That meaning and value originate with our humanity in no way denies their validity. The delight I find in my children is a simple fact of my existence, and requires no theology for its support. Nor is it denigrated by the observation that this feeling came about in the natural course of things. I find no insult at all in being counted part of nature. On the contrary, I find it incredible that some, such as Jeff, find it necessary to believe that all of nature is secondary to human existence, else be compelled to suicide. This same sentiment was expressed on camera by a man from Livermore, California who was justifying his support for creationism. (This was in the PBS show "creationism in the classroom", or whatever.) What's the matter with you guys? Lighten up! Life is for living! Dig those millions of galaxies, man! Dig that primordial ooze! Dig yourself! A natural man -- Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (11/09/83)
[from Lew Mammel:] Jeff Sargent asks: "Is it not an insult to tell people that they are basically the same as primordial ooze, that they exist only by chance, and that therefore they have neither value nor meaning?" This is a non sequitur. That meaning and value originate with our humanity in no way denies their validity. The delight I find in my children is a simple fact of my existence, and requires no theology for its support. Nor is it denigrated by the observation that this feeling came about in the natural course of things. This is a fine statement if you start with the fact of our humanity, but it doesn't explain why Jeff's statement is non sequitur. Where does humanity get its significance above the animals, plants, and ooze? It could be true that mankind's value does not need theism for its support. But it must be supported by something. What continuous, non-theistic reasoning compels me to recognize the significance of man? Most humans perceive their own significance, but what objective truth substantiates it? I could say that "the delight I take in my God is a simple fact of my existence". Does that substantiate theistic belief in general? Couldn't it be said that even our ability to feel that our lives have meaning is itself a product of meaningless chance (i.e. the natural course of things)? Could not the subjective belief in the significance of man be an illusion? An evolutionary imperfection? (Just as some explain the tendency for man to believe in god(s).) What reason is there in nature to assure us that the difference between being humans and being fish is really important? What gives any meaning to that fork in the evolutionary path that produced us? There was no ultimate reason for it to happen. (Was there?) I find no insult at all in being counted part of nature. On the contrary, I find it incredible that some, such as Jeff, find it necessary to believe that all of nature is secondary to human existence, else be compelled to suicide. I find it no insult to be counted part of nature either, because I view nature as God's work (It is "in bondage to decay" as the result of man's fall, but it is still wonderful and significant none the less). I think that the crisis comes not so much in believing that nature is not secondary to human existence (In some sense we all believe it is if we value a human's life over an animal's) but in believing that life itself is secondary to the replication of organic molecules and that our "selfish genes" are the real source of our existence--we being just the means necessary for their continued survival. Also, it is not so much a matter of being compelled to suicide. As long as we deem life to be worth the living we can avoid the question of whether or not it has any ultimate meaning. But it is hard to explain why a man like Adolf Hitler (Oh no, there he goes bringing up Hitler again!) was illogical (given the premise of a purely naturalistic origin of man) in his application of the "survival of the fittest" principle. Sure it makes us all shudder to think of it. But so what? There were many (e.g. those actually involved in the crime) who weren't bothered by it enough to stop it. What makes our feelings right and their's wrong? To Hitler, the elimination of the "weak" or "imperfect" was an action that was beneficial to his society. Yet we also define socially acceptable behavior as that which is for the good of society. Is it all just a matter of your point of view? Is morality only a matter of majority opinion? I recognize that all this is no proof that there must be a God. (It is not a question of whether there *must* but of whether there *is*.) I just think that in God lies a better answer to the question, "Of what importance is man?" than in "nature" (in, and of, itself). What's the matter with you guys? Lighten up! Life is for living! Dig those millions of galaxies, man! Dig that primordial ooze! Dig yourself! I'm with you here Lew, except I just can't dig the ooze. To each his own, I guess. Paul Dubuc
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (11/15/83)
#R:ihuxr:-75100:uokvax:8300016:000:518 uokvax!emjej Nov 13 12:59:00 1983 Why is it that people feel that existence requires some absolute "meaning?" To the extent that the notion makes any sense, the meaning of my life is a purely local quality (in the topological sense). (I guess I used to sit around and contemplate the heat death of the universe or the sun going red giant like everybody else, but eventually I decided that there were better things to worry about. If others want to posit a God to make them feel that there is a reason to live, that's their business.) James Jones