Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 09, 2010, 11:57 (5400 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO-MATT: If we're ultimately an expression of the creator, then what purpose do we have?-If l've understood David correctly, he offers two answers: 1) "If we are created we are fulfilling God's purpose." This is a bit vague, but it sounds like a kind of deism (which I know is not David's belief) ... i.e. whatever we do is part of God's entertainment. In that case, the problem that we solve is God's boredom. 2) Victor Frankl's purpose became to "survive in the concentration camps", which suggests that life's meaning is whatever we think it is. This ties in with: "To me God only offers the benefit of living a life. Anything else He might provide is lagniappe" (I had to look it up. I'd call it a bonus). This is worth a thread all on its own. For those of us who have been privileged to lead a happy and fulfilled life, that surely has to be the most sensible philosophy. Whether God did or didn't give us this life, let's make the most of it and be thankful for anything good that comes our way. Any extras, like a paradisal afterlife, will be a bonus (though not even BBella's period of contemplation followed by a voluntary change of identity really convinces me that eternal life would be such a boon.) The drawback to this restricted approach, as always, is the folk who through no fault of their own have experienced little but suffering. Then, as you say, "such a creator is completely devoid of all the benefits one normally associates with a deity". I have misgivings about the concept of "tough love", especially when it's applied for instance to children killed off before they ever had a chance to be happy. Nor am I too keen on the concept of a deistic God, for much the same reason. But of course the fact that we may not like a particular concept has no bearing on the "truth" ... whatever that may be.-MATT: There is the possibility that our world simply IS with no distinction needed as to whether or not it was or wasn't created.-As you say, this is the Buddhist line, but I don't see it as an alternative. It simply ignores the question of how life arose on Earth. It's a philosophy rather than an explanation.-MATT: At the minimum I can safely make the claim that the universe needed no creator up until the point where abiogenesis is needed.-I'm not so sure. You yourself have pointed out how things are interconnected, and the so-called fine-tuning of the universe ... there are any number of factors without which life would have been impossible ... makes me reluctant to go as far as you. -MATT: You make the mistake of thinking that there's something wrong with being uncertain.-I smiled proudly at your suggestion that agnosticism is "quite possibly the bravest position one can take" ... especially since we agnostics find ourselves in conflict with both sides ... but I'm also constantly aware that in the grand scheme of things, one way or the other I am more of an idiot than a hero!