(April 23, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: There is however an asymmetry here, because it's not the nonexistence itself we are talking about, but our attitude toward nonexistence past and future while we exist now. I'm not too bothered by my nonexistence in 1800, but for some reason I find the idea of not being there to see Kirk and Spock fire their phasers at the Horta - an act they later regretted when they discovered the Horta was a silicon mother who was attacking people only because they were smashing her eggs - a bit disappointing.
Yes, it would be nice if our wishful thinking sometimes coincided with reality.
I too, wish to go on living for a long time after I know I will no longer exist.
But, I hold the position that I would much rather have as many true beliefs (or at least likely to be true) as possible, and the least amount of false beliefs. The best method I know of to achieve this is to base my beliefs on demonstrable evidence and valid/sound logic, not what I wish was true.
Quote:While I remain a theist with a deep attachment to the meanings discovered by Christianity and respect for truths of other religions as well, I'm through with religion itself because it refuses to ask the hard questions and admit we simply don't know the answers. Ditto for many strains of atheism I think overextend (philishophical) materialism to be an end all. Just because we need invoke no deity to explain physical cosmology within a materialist framework doesn't mean there are no good reasons for believing in the divine, provided we don't put it in a box.
What 'meanings discovered by Christianity' are you referring to? As far as I can tell from my multiple reading of the Bible, I see some good things and some bad things. None of them hold any insight beyond what was already understood by other cultures and people of the time.
Very few atheists I know of are philosophical materialists. Most are methodological materialists.
What are these good reasons to believe in the divine you refer to?
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.
