(November 12, 2013 at 9:45 pm)wallym Wrote: I think that's the intuitive answer. But I don't think reality reflects that. When you start saying preferable, that implies some metric is being used to measure things. The kid doesn't want to die in Africa because he values living, lets say. The problem is that his living being valuable is not an absolute. It's a subjective value some people hold, and some people don't.
There is a metric. It is based on the fact that we all live in the same physical world, subject to the same physical laws. I have no trouble understanding that since I want to continue living a comfortable life, that others probably feel the same way. This is confirmed by the vast majority of people behaving in such a way that seems to demonstrate this.
Who says that the value for living has to be absolute? We value it as individuals because that is our evolutionary makeup. It is valuable to us, because we're the ones placing the value on life.
If we did not have the evolutionary makeup to value living, we would have died out as a species millions of years ago. Only species that value life over death survive.
Quote:The example I'm growing fond of is "If the world exploded on Tuesday, who would care on Wednesday?" The answer is nobody. Our entire existence would no longer matter in any way, because there is no absolute meaning.
Exactly!
The universe does not care about our existence. We are the only ones that value our existence because we value our existence.
Sorry about the tautology, but it is demonstrably true.
Quote:So individually, we tend to prefer health/living, but that's mostly for us and those who we have attached value to. Your dog gets hit by a car, you shed tears. 1000's of phillipinos die in a typhoon, you watch a video on CNN and think "that'd suck" and move on with your day.
I may not have the same emotional attachment, but that does not mean I don't feel appalled that 1000's of people lost the one and only life they had.
What does religion offer? The false belief that they are in a 'better place'.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
