(no subject)

[proximoception]

The thing I hate most about religion is how, when you scratch adherents, you find at the bottom some kind of misguided existentialist defense.

I don't want to live in a world where...If there is no God then nothing means...I refuse to believe that there isn't something out...

A. You have the power to lie but not the right. Keep desire and belief separate.
B. Everything means, and that is clearly the problem you're having.
C. Quit moving the "something" bar. Anything you've ever called something is something.

Creating meaning by an act of will is no cooler when there's precedent either. Q. How can everyone throughout all history be wrong? A. Have you examined All History lately?

At least it makes me feel...

It stops you feeling more.

Comments

[localcharacter.livejournal.com]

I haven't really thought about this much, but I like your formulations of the problem.

Modal verbs are troublesome, and with that I'll excuse my inability to accept A and your last two answers. It seems people define these words idiosyncratically especially to allow some gap in which their faith/religion/dogma/whatever may lodge.

Which leaves B & C, which I like for how they bring in the decentered/autopoietic/emergent view. The funny thing to me is that some people use that emergence itself as an argument for god, simply by attaching that name to the phenomenon. The same problem permeates cognitive science: so many people are unaware that the very way they structure the questions presumes dualism. It's all or nothing, not all-except or nothing-and-yet. And for practical purpuses, "all" (the real all) and "nothing" turn out to be pretty much equivalent answers.