Why Why?

[emjay]

Does that always have to include a purpose though, in your view or just generally if different? Ie in terms of Aristotle's causes, does a Final Cause always mean a purpose? There are many words for it... the end of something, the good of something, maybe goal... and for a lot of things, that sort of explanation makes sense... but not everything, IMO at least, so that seems to me the most problematic of those four causes on account of that. For instance I'm no geologist, so forgive any factual errors here, but a beach for instance is IMO an effect of erosion, but not the goal of it... so in one sense in can be said to be an end, but not in the sense of a purpose.

I think of final causes as range of possible outcomes rather than a single goal. So really, it could be thought of as a disposition towards a limited set of future states. An acorn can become an oak tree in many different ways, depending on circumstances. It could also never sprout but it will never become a maple tree no matter where you plant it or how much you water it.

Fair enough... I see where you're coming from with that. I think 'outcomes' is a good word... neutral/flexible enough to sometimes mean goal sometimes not depending on the context. As I said, goal makes more sense to me in some situations than others. I have no problem with it for your seed example... as that's the same sort of example Aristotle used, and as I understand it one of his main inspirations for thinking about things in terms of potentiality and actuality in the first place. But it just felt a lot less appropriate for my example of the sand on a beach, but that being said I think I understand now how you would frame even that... in terms of a disposition like in that video you recommended (I just checked, the 5th one), which used a similar sort of example of a mountain forming.

[slartibartfast]

To the OP: some of us are intensely curious..."Know thyself"..."Man by nature wants to know"...etc.

I have no problem with curiosity. How can some theists at the same time claim to be curious, whilst discounting all of the answers provided by science (such as to evolution) - at the same time surrounding themselves with a belief system that 1. actively discourages curiosity in anything other than what their flavour of religion claims to provide answers to. 2. Actively discourages questioning any logic anomalies in its own answers

[Ahriman]

To the OP: some of us are intensely curious..."Know thyself"..."Man by nature wants to know"...etc.

I have no problem with curiosity. How can some theists can the same time claim to be curious, whilst at the same time discounting all of the answers provided by science (such as to evolution) - at the same time surrounding themselves with a belief system that 1. actively discourages curiosity in anything other than what their flavour of religion claims to provide answers to. 2. Actively discourages questioning any logic anomalies in its own answers

That's because religion is based.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To the OP: some of us are intensely curious..."Know thyself"..."Man by nature wants to know"...etc.

I have no problem with curiosity. How can some theists can the same time claim to be curious, whilst at the same time discounting all of the answers provided by science (such as to evolution) - at the same time surrounding themselves with a belief system that 1. actively discourages curiosity in anything other than what their flavour of religion claims to provide answers to. 2. Actively discourages questioning any logic anomalies in its own answers

Yes, I know the type.

[Belacqua]

To the OP: some of us are intensely curious..."Know thyself"..."Man by nature wants to know"...etc.

I have no problem with curiosity. How can some theists at the same time claim to be curious, whilst discounting all of the answers provided by science (such as to evolution) - at the same time surrounding themselves with a belief system that 1. actively discourages curiosity in anything other than what their flavour of religion claims to provide answers to. 2. Actively discourages questioning any logic anomalies in its own answers

There are people whose belief system tells them that only science can say anything meaningful about the world. They actively discourage any questioning which isn't of the quantifiable empirical scientific type. 

Of course it's been pointed out that their beliefs rest on unprovable assumptions, but some people will still get angry if you say you doubt. Their certainty in their metaphysics appears to show that they are not comfortable with many kinds of doubt.

---

To the best of my knowledge, Christianity does not provide a reason for our existence, other than saying God created us but his purpose is so unknowable and obscure that we shouldn't ask.

That's strange, because lots of Christian thinkers have suggested reasons for our existence. Have you read Dante?

---

Funny story, I once read a live application bible that made the claim God created us because he loves us. First time I heard that as an answer to the reason of our existence, but I found it interesting.

There are pretty much two levels of religious thinking. One is for regular people who don't care much about theology, they just want to go to church and have community and hear pep talks. The other is for people who want to be educated about theology.

In the more educated version, God created the world (with people) because he is Goodness itself. 

Imagine a good person. What would this person do? If he or she just sat in a room all the time and met no one and did nothing, he wouldn't be very good, I don't think. Goodness would prompt him to act. 

This is the meaning behind the famous sentence "bonum diffusivum sui." Goodness spreads itself. A good person will do good for others. That is why God is said to have made the world -- as an overflow of his own goodness.

The important thing to remember is that God is complete, needs nothing, wants nothing. When people say that we are supposed to love God back, it means that we are supposed to aim ourselves toward the Good. In fact this is in our best interests. To the extent that we are good, we are doing what God "wants." To the extent that we are good, we avoid hurting ourselves and others and live for the best aims.

[slartibartfast]

I have no problem with curiosity. How can some theists at the same time claim to be curious, whilst discounting all of the answers provided by science (such as to evolution) - at the same time surrounding themselves with a belief system that 1. actively discourages curiosity in anything other than what their flavour of religion claims to provide answers to. 2. Actively discourages questioning any logic anomalies in its own answers

There are people whose belief system tells them that only science can say anything meaningful about the world. They actively discourage any questioning which isn't of the quantifiable empirical scientific type. 

Of course it's been pointed out that their beliefs rest on unprovable assumptions, but some people will still get angry if you say you doubt. Their certainty in their metaphysics appears to show that they are not comfortable with many kinds of doubt.

---

To the best of my knowledge, Christianity does not provide a reason for our existence, other than saying God created us but his purpose is so unknowable and obscure that we shouldn't ask.

That's strange, because lots of Christian thinkers have suggested reasons for our existence. Have you read Dante?

---

Funny story, I once read a live application bible that made the claim God created us because he loves us. First time I heard that as an answer to the reason of our existence, but I found it interesting.

There are pretty much two levels of religious thinking. One is for regular people who don't care much about theology, they just want to go to church and have community and hear pep talks. The other is for people who want to be educated about theology.

In the more educated version, God created the world (with people) because he is Goodness itself. 

Imagine a good person. What would this person do? If he or she just sat in a room all the time and met no one and did nothing, he wouldn't be very good, I don't think. Goodness would prompt him to act. 

This is the meaning behind the famous sentence "bonum diffusivum sui." Goodness spreads itself. A good person will do good for others. That is why God is said to have made the world -- as an overflow of his own goodness.

The important thing to remember is that God is complete, needs nothing, wants nothing. When people say that we are supposed to love God back, it means that we are supposed to aim ourselves toward the Good. In fact this is in our best interests. To the extent that we are good, we are doing what God "wants." To the extent that we are good, we avoid hurting ourselves and others and live for the best aims.

So in your opinion, can one "aim oneself towards the Good" without believing in God?

[Belacqua]

So in your opinion, can one "aim oneself towards the Good" without believing in God?

Yes, of course.

Dante would say that while you're doing that you're actually aiming toward God whether you know it or not.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There are people whose belief system tells them that only science can say anything meaningful about the world. They actively discourage any questioning which isn't of the quantifiable empirical scientific type. 

Of course it's been pointed out that their beliefs rest on unprovable assumptions, but some people will still get angry if you say you doubt. Their certainty in their metaphysics appears to show that they are not comfortable with many kinds of doubt.

---

That's strange, because lots of Christian thinkers have suggested reasons for our existence. Have you read Dante?

---

There are pretty much two levels of religious thinking. One is for regular people who don't care much about theology, they just want to go to church and have community and hear pep talks. The other is for people who want to be educated about theology.

In the more educated version, God created the world (with people) because he is Goodness itself. 

Imagine a good person. What would this person do? If he or she just sat in a room all the time and met no one and did nothing, he wouldn't be very good, I don't think. Goodness would prompt him to act. 

This is the meaning behind the famous sentence "bonum diffusivum sui." Goodness spreads itself. A good person will do good for others. That is why God is said to have made the world -- as an overflow of his own goodness.

The important thing to remember is that God is complete, needs nothing, wants nothing. When people say that we are supposed to love God back, it means that we are supposed to aim ourselves toward the Good. In fact this is in our best interests. To the extent that we are good, we are doing what God "wants." To the extent that we are good, we avoid hurting ourselves and others and live for the best aims.

So in your opinion, can one "aim oneself towards the Good" without believing in God?

 
I think so yes.

Pretty sure some of the Greek schools do not require a belief in gods.

A more modern perspective; I'm an egoist. It is simply to my advantage to 'aim forth the good'. Essentially, I avoid doing wrong to others because there are consequences. I sometimes behave in a  benevolent way for the sake of reward. That reward may simply be a nice feeling. I think this a common human motivation. From time to time I will act in an altruistic way. IE doing what I see as right/good  for no other reason than it is right or good.

It's my observation (anecdotal evidence) that there are indeed altruistic acts, perhaps billlions on any given day.  However, as far as I'm aware I've never met or heard off an altruistic person. That doesn't mean there aren't any. However, it does seem to suggest such people may be bit thin on the ground. Of course it could simply be that I'm  a nasty and bitter old cynic who finds it hard to see the good in people.   

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


My Reference: Egoism and Altruism  Ronald Milo

[Neo-Scholastic]

So in your opinion, can one "aim oneself towards the Good" without believing in God?

Yes, of course.

Dante would say that while you're doing that you're actually aiming toward God whether you know it or not.

Christ Incognito?

[Belacqua]

it could simply be that I'm  a nasty and bitter old cynic who finds it hard to see the good in people.   

You and me both!

Aristotle (which is where Dante gets his ethical system from) says that a good person is one who feels good from doing good. 

In this system, people who do bad largely act on mistaken premises. They think that what they do will get good results for them, though in the long run it will come back to bite them. Like if I think robbing a bank will make me happy because I'll have a lot of money, I'm ignoring the fact that I'll almost certainly end up in prison. Karma is a thing. 

I still test this theory a couple of times a year, when I'm in a bad mood and I think that a large box of donuts will make me happy. Someday I'll learn that it just makes me feel worse.

And of course it's our leaders' duty to set up a society in which doing good is natural for us -- where we don't have to harm ourselves to be altruistic. But now we have largely the opposite -- we live in a world where money rules everything, and the helping professions are the least well paid. The greatest rewards frequently come from hurting the most people, as the Sackler family can attest.

---

Christ Incognito?

I haven't heard this phrase before. Is this something from theology? 

It fits really well with some of the mystical Christians I've studied.