Nihilism is convincing to you because it offers 'uncertainty' and 'no very cogent explanation.' You find it credible because it does not try to explain everything. The impression I take from that is that you like its humility. It does not claim to know more than it can know. It leaves room for mystery and discovery.
Not what I meant. I was writing in a sort of shorthand style and did not provide clear transitions. What I meant was our moral feelings and the evolution of consciousness are problems for me as regards evolution. I don't "like" these question marks.
The impression I take from that is that you like its humility. It does not claim to know more than it can know. It leaves room for mystery and discovery.
The idea of nihilism is pretty definite. There is no God; life has no purpose. There's nothing particularly humble about nihilism.
How do you understand these two poles: your desire for clarity and the desire for mystery?
I have no desire for mystery. Now, it is true, mystery has a romantic aesthetic value, but that's not important here.
Eastern ideas seem vague to you at the moment because, most likely, you lack a sufficient vocabulary to render them
That may be. If they are clear to you, in a way that can be discursively explained, let me know.
You were criticizing jar's version of Christianity for not having an explanation.
Oh, I thought you meant I was criticizing the fact that there are such phenomena as birth defects.
I don't think your explanation of "if no sorrow, no joy" is a very good one. I don't see any reason why the Almighty could not produce a situation in which we can have joy without sorrow. I think that's supposed to be the situation in heaven, if I'm not mistaken.
I'd be interested in knowing more about that moment when you realized not everybody's religion involved the atmosphere of healthy questioning you were used to
I haven't seen too much "healthy questioning" from Jar. What I have seen is a lot of politically correct ideas, learned apparently by rote, and pictures of baby birds and flowers.
That's "religion" according to Jar.
It's a far cry from what I know of the Anglican tradition. But I'm going by writers I have studied such as William Law, Samuel Johnson, and, in the 20th century, T. S. Eliot. These folks are rather severe.
Taking Eliot as an example, salvation "costs not less than everything."
One suffers to be saved. One takes up one's cross.
A condition of complete simplicity (Costing not less than everything) And all shall be well and All manner of thing shall be well When the tongues of flame are in-folded Into the crowned knot of fire And the fire [suffering] and the rose [beatification] are one.
Or as, when an underground train, in the tube, stops too long between stations And the conversation rises and slowly fades into silence And you see behind every face the mental emptiness deepen Leaving only the growing terror of nothing to think about . . .
What specific aspect of, say, TS Eliot's view of the world do you think Jar throws away? Put it forward. Let's ask.
Jar's view is as far from Eliot's as one could imagine.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
"Your friends, if they can, may bury you with some distinction, and set up a monument, to let posterity see that your dust lies under such a stone; and when that is done, all is done. Your place is filled up by another, the world is just in the same state it was, you are blotted out of its sight, and as much forgotten by the world as if you had never belonged to it."--William Law