Feeling really lost about the absolute Truth

Anonymous

Posted: 30.06.2004, 21:12

Unregistered User

Pants.

I wrote that.

Em.

darkly

Posted: 30.06.2004, 22:06

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

>>Circular.

How so?

>>Maybe I need to practise thinking with my pair.

Sarcasm duly noted

>May be easy for you, but not for these people who don�t have much appetite for life or can�t work out >what�s missing. They try different things but they still feel unsatisfied.

Hey, I can only speak for me. I can't apologise for finding it easier or harder than others...

>>>>In practice, I find they just can't believe in something they think is invented.

>>So believe in what you can feel, touch and see.

>They do. But it�s not enough for them.

Why?

>I think my point was a bit more subtle than that. I didn�t mean that I just believe what the majority >around me believes, and switch beliefs like a chameleon. I meant that everyone (to different degrees) >feels more / less confident about their beliefs, depending on who�s around.

I understood what you were saying. I agree that different situations require different approaches but my point was you have to be consistent and stand your ground, not feel pressured to change who you are.

>So shoot the poor before they get you.

Sarcasm duly noted (again...)

>>Again, two feet and having balls....

>How does that help me decide between secular humanism and (say) fascism???

By making your own mind up, and having the courage to stick with it.

>>>>And do they lay into anyone else apart from you?

>>"Lay into" is a rather hard way of putting it. Do you find me too confrontational??

>I was talking about Andy's colleagues, not you. But yes, people do lay into others because they believe >something 'stupid' 'offensive' or 'intolerant'(!) etc.

I realised you were talking about others. I was merely asking the question. I don't feel I have laid into anyone. I don't think I am particularly intolerant either.

D4rk|y

Midge

Posted: 30.06.2004, 22:20

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

>> Is this making sense?

Makes sense to me.

>>>>>>... the complete disunity between various 'fractions': baptist, methodist, anglican, etc...

I think that's a massive exaggeration. I know lots of unity and collaboration between Baptists, Methodists and Anglicans, and even Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists sometimes. As for me - I don't have a denomination, but that doesn't make me a self-contradiction (or an outsider).

Midge

Posted: 30.06.2004, 22:43

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

>>>May be easy for you

>>Hey, I can only speak for me.

OK - I wasn't sure whether you were.

>>>>So believe in what you can feel, touch and see.

>>>They do. But it�s not enough for them.

>>Why?

Ooh, I could answer that in lots of ways. (1) who knows? (2) because they don't know God (3) because materialism leads to nihilism (4) because of their upbringing (5) because they're too feeble and don't have the balls to take a leap of faith and 'choose to live with purpose' (6) because they always feel their purposes fail, etc. Maybe I should ask them.

>>I understood what you were saying. I agree that different situations require different approaches but my point was you have to be consistent and stand your ground, not feel pressured to change who you are.

Ah, now I see.

>>>>Circular.

>>How so?

To me, goals, ambitions and aspirations ARE a purpose in life. They don't give a deeper reason for that purpose. But anyway, that's less important...

>>>So shoot the poor before they get you.

>>Sarcasm duly noted (again...)

No, I was serious. I still can't see why you should choose one set of beliefs / goals over another except for random reasons.

>>>>Again, two feet and having balls....

>>>How does that help me decide between secular humanism and (say) fascism???

>>By making your own mind up, and having the courage to stick with it.

Ditto - "two feet and having balls" = the courage to stick with it, but on what basis do you make your mind up? Are you saying that they're both equally 'valid' options? I suppose if there's no absolute criterion beyond humans, then it doesn't make sense to say that one option is 'better' than the other. One may cause less suffering than the other, but morality does not exist. Presumably our choice is basically random, but swayed by the influences around us?

darkly

Posted: 01.07.2004, 00:18

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

>>>> Is this making sense?

>>

>>Makes sense to me.

>>

>>>>>>>>... the complete disunity between various 'fractions': baptist, methodist, anglican, etc...

>>

>>I think that's a massive exaggeration. I know lots of unity and collaboration between Baptists, Methodists and Anglicans, and even Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists sometimes. As for me - I don't have a denomination, but that doesn't make me a self-contradiction (or an outsider).

I guess my point is that if there wasn't disunity there would be one denomination...

D4rk|y

darkly

Posted: 01.07.2004, 00:26

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

>>>>>>So believe in what you can feel, touch and see.

>>>>>They do. But it�s not enough for them.

>>>>Why?

>>

>>Ooh, I could answer that in lots of ways.

(1) who knows?

Neither do I.

(2) because they don't know God

I don't know god and I don't feel like that.

(3) because materialism leads to nihilism

I wouldn't say I was a nihilist, but I'm not a materialist either. I guess the argument is valid in-between the extremes and therefore may also be at the extremes. I would say I was slightly materialistic and had nihilistic sympathies.

(4) because of their upbringing

As in they are told it is not enough via their nurture?

(5) because they're too feeble and don't have the balls to take a leap of faith and 'choose to live with purpose'

I didn't need to take a leap of faith to live with purpose and I don't consider myself feeble or a eunuch.

(6) because they always feel their purposes fail, etc. Maybe I should ask them.

That would be interesting.

>>Ditto - "two feet and having balls" = the courage to stick with it, but on what basis do you make your mind up?

You have to weigh it up in your own mind with all the information you have to hand and make the best decision you can.

D4rk|y

andy

Posted: 01.07.2004, 09:42

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

>>I guess my point is that if there wasn't disunity there would be one denomination...

Not sure I agree with that.

Why is there more than 1 TV channel? Can't differing tastes play a role?

andy

Posted: 01.07.2004, 09:44

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

>>I don't know god and I don't feel like that.

You honestly don't worry about the meaningless of life? I think most people do, Christian or not.

darkly

Posted: 02.07.2004, 16:37

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

I don't think life is meaningless... All out actions have influence on what happens around us. Just that fact means our life has meaning.

D4rk|y

davidb

Posted: 03.07.2004, 12:18

registered:

Posts: 280

Status: offline
last visit: 04.05.05

Hi,

Whoooaaaaaghh, this thread has blown up while I was on holiday...

Interesting discussion, let me throw in my twopenny worth...

> So believe in what you can feel, touch and see.

I don't think *anyone* does this. For instance, on one level, people believe in love, truth, reason, right and wrong. On another level, everyone believes in some sort of metaphysics - eg 'the Universe has the power to account for its own existence', 'there is a God', 'there are turtles all the way down'. Logical positivism was blown out of the water as soon as people realised that you can't feel, touch or see the belief that you should believe logical positivism.

So, once we admit that we believe in many things that are not verifiable in the physical world, we then have to ask, "What's the best way to fit these beliefs together?" For me, God is the obvious choice - he guarantees the real existence of love, truth, reason, right and wrong. A godless universe doesn't have these things in them - only the illusion that they exist.

> If you can't believe on your own you why believe??????

I don't think *anyone* does this. We believe things in a community. When we're outside that community, our beliefs seem harder to believe - but this can't be used as an argument for the falsity of those beliefs, it's just human nature. It does explain the story of some people who lose their faith in Christianity though - if they're not often with Christians, sociological pressure can push them away from their faith even if it's the truth. Anyway, I don't think we can look at 'how sure I feel' and 'how often I'm with other people who believe what I do' as useful tests of whether something is correct.

> I think to a far lesser extent, as 'non-believers' have a more diverse opinion of what they believe - from the possibility of a god, to definitely a god but not in any particular religion to no god at all.

I agree that there's a lot of diversity, but the point is that 'non-believers' agree that they can't currently put their trust in the Christian God. This belief is reinforced by lots of people around them believing this. I see it happening every day.

> I guess my point is that if there wasn't disunity there would be one denomination...

There has been a lot of disunity in the history of the church, which has caused these denominations. However, my experience is that there's now a lot of unity between different groups of Christians. I get on well with Baptists, Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics, the lot. Of course, there will continue to be specific arguments (eg the current homosexual bishop debate) but that can be a good thing if carried out with respect and love. Actually my example is a good example of where that isn't happening, and I'm sure Jesus is mourning about that.

In truth, the fact that Christians have shown a lot of love towards each other, and also a lot of hate towards each other, makes it hard to know what to make of Christianity. Jesus expected Christians to show love, and this was to be the proof of Christianity. Christians have clouded this proof, while also contributing to this proof. I suppose the fact that Christians also claim that human nature is flawed means that what's happened is roughly the balance we might expect.

> I don't think life is meaningless... All out actions have influence on what happens around us. Just that fact means our life has meaning.

There are two sorts of meaninglessness, or two sorts of purposefulness. a) Psychologically purposeful: one feels that one's actions are valuable. I can see that 'non-believers' can have this sort of purpose. You set a goal, you feel purposeful, you achieve the goal. b) Purposeful in the grand scheme of things: I can't see how this can exist at all for non-believers. You're going to be burned up in a few years, as will everyone you've ever cared about, and all the things you've ever done will decay to nothing. The planet will be burned up, the sun will die, every atom you've ever affected will decay away to nothing in a universe that will tear itself apart into nothing. Nothing you do matters in this sense. Only someone who believes that our actions are valuable in the grand scheme of things, and that we survive death, can have purpose in this sense, I think.

davidb

Posted: 03.07.2004, 12:30

registered:

Posts: 280

Status: offline
last visit: 04.05.05

>>> So believe in what you can feel, touch and see.

One other thought: this view does have a lot of good things to say about it. In the Bible's account, God basically agreed with it, first by appearing in the Old Testament to people to explain who he was, what he's like, and to rescue them eg from slavery; then even more by taking flesh (Jesus). Your words echo the beginning of 1John:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."

Christianity is primarily a historical faith - we believe this particular man really existed, really did and said things that can only be understood to mean that he is Lord of the cosmos. So, a question for you: for starters, do you believe he existed? It's open to examination.

Midge

Posted: 03.07.2004, 18:48

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

>>b) You're going to be burned up in a few years, as will everyone you've ever cared about, and all the things you've ever done will decay to nothing.

Ultimately, yes, but we won't be around to know. But if I can improve my and others' life for the time they actually have it, that's all that's necessary/relevant, isn't it?

>>You set a goal, you feel purposeful, you achieve the goal.

If you're lucky. If you're unlucky, your ambitions are frustrated, your plans fail and you feel stress because you can't control the situation. This feeling of purposefulness doesn't work either if you're naturally indecisive or don't have hope - e.g. why hope for a happy marriage if you know lots of unhappy ones?

andy

Posted: 06.07.2004, 10:21

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

Heat death

What a cool way of putting it.

Midge

Posted: 06.07.2004, 18:29

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

>>don't have hope

Or if you look back at your life so far and think "Why should I think that the rest of it will be any better?"

Midge

Posted: 19.07.2004, 23:36

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

>>Christianity is primarily a historical faith - we believe this particular man really existed

Yes, when I was pondering all these things, one thing that brought me back down to earth was the crucifix on my landlady's kitchen wall. It reminded me that my faith is not basically about philosophical ideas but a man who died on a cross.

>>why hope for a happy marriage if you know lots of unhappy ones?

And only last night a friend of mine was saying how all he's hearing about at the moment are marriage breakups in his old church, including the ex-pastor having an affair with another church worker's wife and being beaten up by him in the street as a result.

Also I despair when I think of all the people I know or see who are hurt or troubled or desperate or lonely or disturbed, and there's no one around to help them. And how feeble and futile our efforts to protect the planet are, compared to our activities to mess it up. But I suppose there are positive things and improvements too - I just need to be thankful for them and be more optimistic.

Something that struck me this morning was the fact that the Bible verse that mentions "frustration" (or "futility") also mentions "hope" straight afterwards - Romans 8:20.

andy

Posted: 20.07.2004, 07:53

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

>>Also I despair when I think of all the people I know or see who are hurt or troubled or desperate or lonely or disturbed, and there's no one around to help them.

This really strikes a chord with me. Just the loneliness of one person reminds me how utterly helpless we are. I can't even help that one person because I'm trapped by my own limitations.

darkly

Posted: 20.07.2004, 18:20

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

But you have to live life with a can do attitude or you will slide into your own self-pity without realising that what you are doing is making a difference even if you can't effect everything...

D4rk|y

andy

Posted: 21.07.2004, 09:01

registered:

Posts: 792

Status: online

"can do attitude"

*hmph*

Yes, and while you're at it, short people should make themselves taller.

Midge

Posted: 21.07.2004, 16:56

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

I've just got "Introducing Sartre / Sartre for Beginners" out of the library to read up on what he had to say about the meaning of life. So far I've learnt that:

* His nickname for Simone de Beauvoir was "The Beaver"

* His supreme insult was "you engineer"

* In Nausea he said, "Everything that exists is born for no reason, carries on living through weakness, and dies by accident."

* Since there is no God, there is no real meaning, but we are forced to make choices and "Values rise from our actions as partridges do from the grass beneath our feet."

It sounds to me like he's saying we have to act and make choices, and that brings our values to light, but those values are ultimately unfounded. I'm not sure what he'd say against fascists, for example - well - one thing he did say about an antisemitic character is that he was dishonest in not facing up to the absurdity of reality (in an intellectual way) but turning to anger and violence instead. Which is presumably wrong in Sartre's eyes for some reason.

Politically, he seems to have considered freedom for all to be the number one priority - but I'm not sure whether he saw this as just his personal choice, or a universal (transcendent) obligation, or what.

Midge

Posted: 21.07.2004, 22:33

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

On another note, I've just come across a book called "Can it be true? A personal pilgrimage through faith and doubt", which looks good to me. It's written by someone who worked overseas in mission work and who struggled with all sorts of doubts.

There's a review here.

I've added it to BooksToRead on this site.

darkly

Posted: 21.07.2004, 22:38

registered:

Posts: 547

Status: offline
last visit: 23.01.06

>>"can do attitude"

>>

>>*hmph*

>>

>>Yes, and while you're at it, short people should make themselves taller.

I don't understand your problem with confidence.

Midge

Posted: 22.07.2004, 16:23

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

Having thought more about these things today, I think there are two different issues on my mind here:

One is about feeling my life has a purpose. I think I can see how you can live purposefully, whether you believe in God or not. My feelings of purposelessness come from a sense of frustration or inability to achieve my chosen purposes in this world, rather than from the question of ultimate realities. My belief in God and heaven is what keeps me going in the face of these feelings, whereas other people I know don't have that hope to sustain them.

The other is about values (which help us to choose our aims and purposes). What troubles me about pure existentialism, or any belief that excludes an independent standard above the individual person, is that it means morals are totally relative. There is no way I can say that my values are any better than a fascist's, for example. I can impose my views on others if I have the power, either alone or in a group in society, but that doesn't make them right. In another society, fascism could be imposed on others.

I can't escape the feeling that some values are really better than others. This suggests to me that it's worth considering the possibility that God (or some independent standard) really is there. Alternatively, Richard Dawkins would probably say that we've just evolved to feel certain things are 'obligations' on us, as that helps our species to survive. Just as we can't escape hunger pangs when we're hungry, we can't escape pangs of conscience when we ignore our sense of duty. But even he doesn't seem happy to say that a sense of duty to beat people up is as valid as a sense of duty to protect people.

Midge

Posted: 26.07.2004, 20:51

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

And another thing...

>>>>Yeah my friends were offended that I "choose" to believe that.

>>

>>Of course you chose to believe!

Thinking about it, it seems to me that actively choosing, and finding oneself passively convinced, feed off each other in a circle. If I feel uncertain about whether it's worth reading the Bible or praying, I (choose to) do it less, and then I find myself feeling even less convinced about its worth. If on the other hand I choose to put some trust and confidence in the act, believing that it'll turn out to be useful, I usually find myself encouraged by how it goes, and want to do it more. So the two go hand in hand.

It's a bit like doing exercise or learning a language or practising an instrument - if you start after a long gap, it's hard, but once you're in the flow and you feel you're making progress, you're encouraged to keep choosing to do it. I'm put off praying or reading the Bible when I think of the times I've struggled with it and it's left me dry/cold - but I should also remember the times when I've pushed myself into it and thought "Why did I put it off for so long? This is good", and the times when it's been amazing. (Also, I've realised it's much easier for me to get something out of prayer and Bible study when I do it with other people, so if I'm struggling, I should try and do that more. I suppose the same applies to exercise...)

Having said that, that doesn't quite address the question about "choosing" to believe in hell etc. I do choose to believe in hell and heaven and other things, but not in a piecemeal fashion, picking and choosing whether to believe each individual thing. Rather, I choose to believe what Jesus says in the Bible, and the other things seem to me to follow from that. It's like when someone said to me "I know the Bible says you should believe such-and-such, but do you believe it?" It wasn't a sensible distinction, because I'd already chosen to believe anything that I could be convinced the Bible really said I should believe - that was what my beliefs were based on.

One thing that's definitely wrong is the idea I choose to believe in things like hell or heaven because they appeal to me, I like them or I want them to be true. If other people choose their beliefs on that basis, and assume I do the same, it's no wonder if they think I'm a bit odd/twisted to believe what I do.

Midge

Posted: 26.07.2004, 23:34

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

While reading the book I mentioned about doubt, a thought occurred to me: books such as "Healing for Damaged Emotions" often say how my self-image is formed by the image of me that's 'reflected back' from the people around me - the impression they give of me, my worth etc. - which is distorted and skewed by who those people are, and the problems they have.

It occurred to me that the same could be said for me-as-a-Christian: I can easily form an idea of what it means to be a Christian from the way people around me present it, but they're skewed in various ways. For example, as the book said, the media isn't interested in nice heartwarming stories, it's interested in controversy, conspiracy theories and experts who can 'disprove' Christianity or discover a new Jesus. So they don't present a representative picture of the state of Christian belief, but one which encourages me to doubt and feel I'm on shaky ground. Again, people like my mum can't believe I look at the Bible as it's so boring and "Haven't you read it by now?" And she protects herself from any mention of Christian things by saying "Oh, that's boring". If I'm surrounded by people who think Christianity and the Bible are unappealing and uninspiring, or downright stupid, their mood can rub off on me. But it's not surprising they think that way - the Bible can appear pointless and meaningless until you know God, and then it can appear exciting and wonderful (sometimes). So I need to watch out that I'm not letting my views of my own faith be over-influenced by what I hear from the people around me, who aren't impartial and objective judges.

Midge

Posted: 20.09.2004, 19:36

registered:

Posts: 620

Status: offline
last visit: 20.09.06

Did we ever get anywhere in this discussion?