Re: afterlife
Re: afterlife
LightSon,
Thanks for such a great response!
Originally posted by LightSon The fundamental questions which tend to drive theism are, (1) where did we come from(origin) (2) why are we here (purpose) (3) where are we going (destiny)
From my perspective, all life comes from God which includes physical life and spiritual life. In this framework, I have a purpose and my destiny is positive and substantial.
Starting from the assumption of "God is not", one might wonder if the "fundamental questions" still apply. I've heard atheists reject the presumption that there is any merit or need to pursue these questions. I must agree. What is the merit to understanding origin, purpose and destiny if we are but an accidental collision of time, space and energy? In other words, how could it be said within the atheist framework, that there is any non-arbitrary purpose for existence? Why should the atheist expect a destiny that is positive and substantial?
Nevertheless, atheists often are interested in pursuing these questions, (hence their TOL ubiquity). As a consequence to "God is not", such an interest, at first blush, would seem counterintuitive. "Why should they care"? We theists suspect atheistic interest is a "tip of the hand", but we get into trouble when we say so. So I won't.
Well, I would say that these questions are essential to any human being who is curious about the nature of his own existence. I honestly don't see why a belief in God, or lack of such, should in any way curtail our natural human curiosity. And beyond even natural curiosity, anyone who might be pondering the criteria by which he makes life decisions, or who might be somewhat afraid of the unknown condition we call death, would certainly be led to ask himself these and similar questions. And reasonably so. If these questions could be answered they would go a long way in indicating a criteria for our life's decisions now, and in helping prepare us for whatever is to come next.
I agree with you that some atheists would claim there to be no reason to ask themselves such questions, but I would also point out that there are a lot of religionists that use religion to AVOID having to ask themselves such questions as well. I don't think curiosity and courage, or the lack of them, are traits that belong exclusively to atheists or theists.
Originally posted by LightSon So assuming an atheist desires an intellectual pursuit of the origin of our existence, they tend to do so in a way that preserves their basic assumption, (i.e. God is not). As a consequence, they insist that only the observable be accepted into evidence. Only the testable is worthy of consideration; "if we can't see it, it is metaphysical fantasy and worthy of dismissal".
To that I say "fine". Our physical life is an observable phenomenon. Any supposed metaphysical component (God, afterlife, spirits, souls, angels & miracles etc.) are not observable, not testable and not consequences of a universe that is a product of natural selection.
In short, the atheist can't have it both ways. You can't insist "God is not" because He can't be proven, and then arbitrarily open the door to an afterlife - an equally unprovable theory.
I think you have created a bit of a "straw man" argument, here. To deny God does not equate to a denial of all mystery or the dismissal of anything as yet unknown. One could still contemplate and investigate to possibility of an existence beyond that which we now experience without having to accept a divine deity or even a divine prime cause or creator. The universe we see and experince is still full of many mysteries even to an atheist. I see no reason that even though he does not believe in a deity, that he couldn't still reasonably expect that there be lots to learn about how we come to be as we are, or to what state we might proceed after death.
There is no reason I can see why an atheist could not proceed to investigate these mysteries using logic, reason, and scientific methods, or why he could not unravel some of them without accepting the concept of divine magic (a creative and manipulative force outside "natural" existence).
I agree that it's somewhat contradictory to dismiss the idea of a deity while still admitting that there is so much that we humans do not know about the nature, function, and origins of existence, but then I am not an atheist. However, even though it might be somewhat of a premature judgment, it's no more so than a theist who has chosen TO believe in a deity with an equally scant understanding of the actual function, nature, and origin of existence.
Originally posted by LightSon In summary, The theist's assumption of God provides that all metaphysical constructs be derived in accordance to revealed truth.
Atheistic assumptions restrict reality to observable phenomenon, which necessarily precludes an afterlife.
I think you presume wrongly, based on a prejudice toward theism. You have invented a straw "atheist" and an illogical position to go with him, which you are using to dismiss his rightful and reasoned skepticism toward your own position. Frankly, I think both atheists and theists are jumping the gun, and are both holding on to beliefs that neither of them can possibly prove. They each can see their own flawed reasoning in the arguments of the other, but that they can't admit to in their own, and this is why they tend to bicker, so.
But that just my opinion of it. *smile*
