Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 12:15 PM
32 online now:
dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (9 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,052 Year: 5,089/19,786 Month: 1,211/873 Week: 107/460 Day: 49/58 Hour: 2/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   Eternal Life (thanks, but no thanks)
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 286 of 296 (597033)
12-19-2010 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Omnivorous
12-18-2010 8:33 PM


Re: Great Discussion
Sorry I haven't gotten back. Life gets hectic this time a year.

I have no problem with a great discussion, but if I think it would be better if it was opened for others, if for no other reason than I'm not sure I have much else to add and I could use reinforcements.

You have to be careful what you write here. I throw in what I thought was a clever turn of phrase and now look what's happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Omnivorous, posted 12-18-2010 8:33 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Omnivorous, posted 12-19-2010 2:26 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1075 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 287 of 296 (597088)
12-19-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by GDR
12-19-2010 3:55 AM


Re: Great Discussion
GDR writes:

You have to be careful what you write here. I throw in what I thought was a clever turn of phrase and now look what's happened.

Thread shark!

I have no problem with a great discussion, but if I think it would be better if it was opened for others, if for no other reason than I'm not sure I have much else to add and I could use reinforcements.

Upon reflection, I don't have much to add, either, but some things to think about. Maybe I'll start a thread another time, when I have more to say.

Back on topic, I'd need a lot more specific info on terms before I accepted eternal life--I've heard of others making contractual errors.

On the other hand, living until I'm through with it sounds good. So many books to read! I like to travel and change, and there will always be new coveys of pretty girls.

So that old immortal ennui would take a while.


I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 12-19-2010 3:55 AM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2010 4:04 PM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14811
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 288 of 296 (597091)
12-19-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Omnivorous
12-19-2010 2:26 PM


Re: Great Discussion
I think there is room for discussion of the alleged similarities between theology and science. It seems clear to me that under GDR's view theology would look much like crank science or pseudoscience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Omnivorous, posted 12-19-2010 2:26 PM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 12-19-2010 7:37 PM PaulK has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 289 of 296 (597124)
12-19-2010 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by PaulK
12-19-2010 4:04 PM


Re: Great Discussion
PaulK writes:

I think there is room for discussion of the alleged similarities between theology and science. It seems clear to me that under GDR's view theology would look much like crank science or pseudoscience.

There is some justification for that but it isn't completely true. My theology is essentially formed by my understanding of scripture. My understanding of scripture is enlightened by what I believe to be solid Biblical scholars such as, (I realize I'm repeating myself here), C S Lewis and N T Wright, although I realize that Lewis would deny being a Biblical scholar.

I also read those that have studied both science and theology such as John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath and John Lennox. Also on the more esoteric side I enjoy Gerald Schroeder.

On the science side I have read a number of people such as Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, (her book largely went pretty much completely over my head), Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and I subscribe to Scientific American.

For the anti-theistic side I have read Dawkins and Hitchens.

I think where the idea of crank science comes from is that it is clear that in the end there is an absolute truth. This belief causes me to look for instances where there appears that there could be an overlap between science and my theology. I agree completely that these views are mere speculation but then so are many scientific theories. The difference of course is that the scientific theories might eventually be shown to be true whereas my speculations can't be proven.

I think that there are different paths to that truth and that science is absolutely one of them. I understand those that think science is essentially the only path, and though I understand that POV and acknowledge that it might be true, I am firmly convinced that is not the case.

Cheers and Merry Christmas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2010 4:04 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2010 2:15 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14811
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 290 of 296 (597168)
12-20-2010 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
12-19-2010 7:37 PM


Re: Great Discussion
quote:

There is some justification for that but it isn't completely true. My theology is essentially formed by my understanding of scripture. My understanding of scripture is enlightened by what I believe to be solid Biblical scholars such as, (I realize I'm repeating myself here), C S Lewis and N T Wright, although I realize that Lewis would deny being a Biblical scholar.

Since the main interaction of theology with the empirical seems to be avoiding falsification - whether by adjusting the "theory" so it cannot be falsified or finding excuses to deny or explain away the evidence I think that the comparison is highly apt.

quote:

I also read those that have studied both science and theology such as John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath and John Lennox. Also on the more esoteric side I enjoy Gerald Schroeder.

From my own reading I would say that Schroeder's writings ARE pseudoscience.

quote:

I think where the idea of crank science comes from is that it is clear that in the end there is an absolute truth.

Really my comparison came from your view that theology is like science (apparently meaning speculative theoretical work, largely unconstrained by facts) plus my own observations of how theology deals with problematic issues.

quote:

I think that there are different paths to that truth and that science is absolutely one of them. I understand those that think science is essentially the only path, and though I understand that POV and acknowledge that it might be true, I am firmly convinced that is not the case.

I am firmly convinced that deciding that you must be right and inventing excuses and rationalisations to try to "support" your beliefs is no way to the truth at all. Maybe one day you'll realise that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 12-19-2010 7:37 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 296 (597210)
12-20-2010 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Modulous
12-17-2010 4:26 AM


You're still you.

Tautology.

You can't be anything else but you, yourself

Tautology.

Those being tautologies means that your position is a contradiction

You change, changing doesn't make you not-you

What do you mean by 'you'? See Message 8 for potentially relevant thoughts on this issue.

I suppose I'm falling in line with this:

quote:
So you're saying, "but my self has this same kind continuance of 'perspective', so its the same thing just a different part (like the train) or occupies a different time (like the car) of the same thing. It is this thing that I am interested in achieving personality".

It is a strong argument, and of course, this is a matter of personal preferences.


Of course you're always going to be you. Its wrong that because you were so much different when you were younger that it wasn't you who, say, stole that candy from the store. No, it was you who did it even if you've changed since then.

How far back do you have to go? "I've changed so much since I killed my wife last week, that it wasn't me who did it so I shouldn't be charged with anything..." No, that doesn't fly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Modulous, posted 12-17-2010 4:26 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2010 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 292 of 296 (597212)
12-20-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by New Cat's Eye
12-20-2010 11:52 AM


Those being tautologies means that your position is a contradiction

Only if I claimed that I am not me. Which I haven't

Of course you're always going to be you. Its wrong that because you were so much different when you were younger that it wasn't you who, say, stole that candy from the store. No, it was you who did it even if you've changed since then.

And this leads us to wondering why we should care if we survive 10,000 million years into the future, if the 'me' that is there is so radically changed - the 'me' that is here now simply can't find any reason to care about the fate of that being and it wouldn't matter if it didn't even exist.

The parts that are 'me' that I want to preserve in 'eternal life' have not been preserved - so who cares?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2010 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2010 12:32 PM Modulous has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 296 (597215)
12-20-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Modulous
12-20-2010 12:13 PM


Only if I claimed that I am not me. Which I haven't

Well there's this:

quote:
If I do grow, then I change. This is good. I like changing - I am a different person now, then when I was six years old and I am different from when I was eighteen. The me aged eighteen can be said to be 'dead' since it doesn't really exist any more. It has been replaced with me aged twenty eight.

And now this:

And this leads us to wondering why we should care if we survive 10,000 million years into the future, if the 'me' that is there is so radically changed - the 'me' that is here now simply can't find any reason to care about the fate of that being and it wouldn't matter if it didn't even exist.

The parts that are 'me' that I want to preserve in 'eternal life' have not been preserved - so who cares?

Which is assuming that you're going to change so much that you're not going to be you anymore.

You're still gonna be you, so I don't see the problem.

You should care the same way you care about whether or not you'll see tomorrow. It doesn't matter if you push it out 10,000 years, you're still gonna be there the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that, all the way back to tomorrow and today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2010 12:13 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2010 2:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 294 of 296 (597236)
12-20-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by New Cat's Eye
12-20-2010 12:32 PM


Which is assuming that you're going to change so much that you're not going to be you anymore.

You're still gonna be you, so I don't see the problem.

But what 'I' am is different to what 'I' was, and what 'I' will be. There is an unbroken chain from me to the first life forms on earth, and a great deal of change has occurred in a few billion years, but that is quite different than arguing that 'I', in any sense that matters to 'me', has survived 4 billion years.

Obviously the tautology is true, but I don't care about the tautology. I care about whether or not in 25 billion years there will be something that exists that I can be associated with strongly enough for me to care about it. I doubt very much that this could be the case.

You should care the same way you care about whether or not you'll see tomorrow.

But I think we can agree that tomorrow I'll be largely the same person I am today, with little difference. The same knowledge, the same loves, hates, goals, personality etc etc.

It doesn't matter if you push it out 10,000 years, you're still gonna be there the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that, all the way back to tomorrow and today.

True - but I don't care about the guy 10,000 years from now who is going to be very different from the guy sat here today so I don't care that that guy will exist one day.

What is it that you want to survive? If I said that your perception will continue, but you will have no memories and none of the same personality, would you care?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2010 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2010 2:44 PM Modulous has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 296 (597243)
12-20-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Modulous
12-20-2010 2:20 PM


But what 'I' am is different to what 'I' was, and what 'I' will be.

But still 'you' nonetheless.

There is an unbroken chain from me to the first life forms on earth, and a great deal of change has occurred in a few billion years, but that is quite different than arguing that 'I', in any sense that matters to 'me', has survived 4 billion years.

Irrelevant. "You" were never a caveman, or a single celled organism.

Obviously the tautology is true, but I don't care about the tautology. I care about whether or not in 25 billion years there will be something that exists that I can be associated with strongly enough for me to care about it. I doubt very much that this could be the case.

Why?

You can just point me to a post if you've already explained it. Pardon me for not reading through the whole thread.

Presuambly, its because of all the change you expect to go through, so as you say:

But I think we can agree that tomorrow I'll be largely the same person I am today, with little difference. The same knowledge, the same loves, hates, goals, personality etc etc.

So too, will you largely be the same the day before 10000 years from now as the day of. And the day before that, and the day before that, all the way back to tomorrow.

True - but I don't care about the guy 10,000 years from now who is going to be very different from the guy sat here today so I don't care that that guy will exist one day.

But you do care about the guy you'll be tomorrow with your ever-so-slight difference. When tomorrow is the 10000th-year day, you're still going to care about the you of tomorrow. I don't see where this chain breaks so as to make you stop caring about yourself and if it does, then you might as well not care about tomorrow either.

What is it that you want to survive? If I said that your perception will continue, but you will have no memories and none of the same personality, would you care?

This isn't about me, its about you!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2010 2:20 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2010 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 296 of 296 (597279)
12-20-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by New Cat's Eye
12-20-2010 2:44 PM


I wouldn't find myself thrilled to learn that when I die, my perception continues, but I forget everything that happened to me, my personality is evacuated etc etc. That's the 'me' I'm talking about it, and it is dead at the point of this 'mind wipe'.

You can just point me to a post if you've already explained it. Pardon me for not reading through the whole thread

If it makes it any easier - I've only written 57 points - and most of those are clearly about a different angle than this entirely

As well as the one I already referenced try Message 77 and Message 113 - the latter post especially gives an accounting of my position on the matter you've raised in much more detail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-20-2010 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019