Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



3/28/2017 2:28 am  #11


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Quod-est-Devium,

Now we seem to be finally starting to get somewhere I will post my comments on your criticism of their arguments later, right now I would like to have a little more clarity on some of your earlier remarks on relationship of God and Meaning, just to be sure that I won't talk past you later on..

For example.

Under classical theism, humanity has an innate value and an ultimate purpose. Our ultimate purpose, ie. the purpose for which God created us and the optimum condition for our flourishing, is loving union with God. But as the freedom to choose is a necessary condition for loving relationship, God rightly gives us freedom to choose to pursue our own ends. Some choose to spend their life on baser purposes. We say to these people that they are living "a meaningless life," but they do not lack purpose or value. They have purpose and value simply by being human persons created and loved by God. By my reading, this account of purpose, value, and meaning avoids most, if not all, of Megill and Linford's arguments. Try it out at and tell me what you think

Here its unclear what you mean by having loving union with God , is it some event or state of affairs that obtain? Is it some experience ? Does it have some qualitative content?  

similarly,

 if the purpose and ultimate condition of flourishing of mankind is union with God then God could only actualize a world in which we have the freedom to make union with him the purpose for which we live. If we have the power to make this choice then we also have the power to choose otherwise and spend our lives on meaningless purposes. 

Here its still unclear what this union is, exactly what is it that we choose , what is it that gets missing when one doesn't choose this elusive ...thing?

but then,

 it seems obvious to me that one doesn't need to hold a strictly theistic account of the meaning of life to affirm that the existence of God adds something valuable to one's account. For example, in the account I offered, one could have a meaningful life even if God doesn't exist so long as one lives for a purpose that has intrinsic value. However, if God exists then we have reason to believe we were made for an ultimate purpose (whatever it is). Such a purpose would be extremely valuable and affirming to our intrinsic worth. So while meaning is possible in an atheistic world, there is a higher ceiling for potential meaning under classical theism. That is one advantage theism has.  

Now here you seem to be doing a different thing , rather than talking about our ultimate purpose being union with God here you seem to be making something like a Sceptical theistic move regarding the realms of meaning and value,here you seem to suggest that meaning in a theistic world and an atheistic world would be the same but in a theistic world their might be something extra special about our lives, some extra positive feature that is entailed by existence of God ,here referred only as Whatever it is..

this becomes more apparent here..

 A theist can accept (as I do) that meaning in general is possible without God but maintain that there is a higher dimension of meaningfulness, ie. ultimate meaning, that still depends on the existence of God. I think this is enough to justify the intuition that most of us have that a world without God would lose something important as concerns meaning in life

And Here 

Yeah, I guess I just think that classical theism doesn't effect meaning in life much besides adding ultimate purpose (which is separate from meaning), and raising the ceiling of possible meaning in a life

so I think there are two things you are trying to do here and I suggest sticking with the sceptical theistic response ,It seems to me its only thats available to Classical theist,it seems weird to talk about having relationships with Unmoved Mover ..so I think classical theist can only suggest that we don't really know right now what ultimate purpose that you speak off actually is like ..of course this has many problems with it but ..its still better than something having to do with choosing something which is Union with God ...but these are all the points I would want some clarification on...  

And with all this being said I would respond to 

If you ever find the time, I would be curious to know what you find so unconvincing about the argument I made. I admit that I am surprised that you think the claim "If God exists, then no lives lack meaning," is less controversial then  "There is at least one life that lacks meaning." Seriously, I am trying but I don't see it. It seems that the first is obviously the claim that the theist should take issue with.  

Well like I said you seem to be doing two things and right now the first strategy seem very unclear to me ..
so I think its just better to accept that if God exists then all lives have meaning ...adopting your sceptical thesis would undermine the second premise that there actually are lives that completely lacked meaning or purpose ..

so right now I haven't commented on any of your responses to their arguments I think its important to make these clarifications(so I could make right evaluations) , and you clearly seem to adopt both of these strategies in responding to their arguments , I have argued in this comment that it seems only one is viable ... so you might want to proceed further with these in mind...I would try to raise objections to your arguments later on.. 













 

 

3/28/2017 8:24 am  #12


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Calhoun,

Thanks for the great response! I am having fun!

Here its unclear what you mean by having loving union with God , is it some event or state of affairs that obtain? Is it some experience ? Does it have some qualitative content?  

I don’t have a thorough description. Union with God is not unlike union with persons in its essential characteristics: 2nd personal connection, shared attention, self-revelation of important needs or desires, responsiveness etc. As for love, I think Aquinas gives the best definition: desire for the good of the beloved, and desire of union with the beloved.  This isn’t something I know very much about, but I can refer you to literature if you want to know more.

what is it that gets missing when one doesn't choose this elusive ...thing?

What is missing if one doesn’t choose to have a close relationship with anybody? You lose out on getting to have close relationship with God. Speaking for myself, I like having close relationships, in fact, I consider close relationships to be among the greatest goods one can experience. From what I have heard, a close relationship with God is particularly fulfilling. Consider the words of St. Augustine: “You [God] have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Now here you seem to be doing a different thing , rather than talking about our ultimate purpose being union with God here you seem to be making something like a Sceptical theistic move regarding the realms of meaning and value,here you seem to suggest that meaning in a theistic world and an atheistic world would be the same but in a theistic world their might be something extra special about our lives, some extra positive feature that is entailed by existence of God ,here referred only as Whatever it is..
I wasn’t flip-flopping on my view of meaning, I was just switching between writing from a general theists point of view and my own view. I should have been more clear, I can see now that that is confusing.

I am not familiar with the sceptical theist point of view concerning meaning in life. I have a passing familiarity to their response to the problem of evil, and I don’t like it. But the way you describe my view is basically right. I think that all that is necessary for there to be meaning in life is (a) someone to live for a certain set of purposes, and (b) there to be an objective scale of value concerning those purposes. So long as those are possible in an atheistic world (most people think they are. I am still deciding for myself) then meaning is possible in an atheistic world. What classical theism adds is the possibility of ultimate purpose: a purpose which we were made to pursue, one proper to our essence and which we can find ultimate fulfillment in. Ultimate purpose construed in this way is only possible under theism, and it is an obvious advantage over atheism.  This is what I was talking about used the phrase “higher dimension of meaningfulness.”

it seems weird to talk about having relationships with Unmoved Mover.
I don’t think it is. Well, it is weird, as in crazy to think about, but not impossible.

Anyways, in conclusion, I just want to clarify that the perception you have of me arguing to things concerning meaning in life under theism is incorrect. I am arguing for one position: that theism allows for ultimate purpose as I describe it above. The “union with God,” is just the theory of what that ultimate purpose is that I ascribe to. I don’t think it is an uncommon theory, however. I take it to be the position of at least Aquinas and Augustine, probably many others. 

Last edited by Quod-est-Devium (3/28/2017 8:25 am)

 

3/28/2017 10:26 am  #13


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Its good to know you like having this exchange..
Please don't mind I just want to make one more comment on this as this is important for me to know what you are basing meaning of life on ..before evaluating that any criticism to it is sound or not ..so please bear with me ..

It still feels like you're trying to do two things...maybe this time it would become more clear..

First here 

I don’t have a thorough description. Union with God is not unlike union with persons in its essential characteristics: 2nd personal connection, shared attention, self-revelation of important needs or desires, responsiveness etc.

Saying that union with God is not unlike union with persons would make more sense if it one believes In a personal God, because then as they say He is one of us,and one of our own...just a very perfect person who has all the great making properties, who can be conceived as a very perfect friend,or a very loving Father ...so it makes sense to talk about that way..but in case of A Completely simple Unchanging First Cause of All that is ..we can't conceive of it that way....

What is missing if one doesn’t choose to have a close relationship with anybody? You lose out on getting to have close relationship with God. Speaking for myself, I like having close relationships, in fact, I consider close relationships to be among the greatest goods one can experience. From what I have heard, a close relationship with God is particularly fulfilling

Again, it would make much more sense if we were talking about a being who is literally like a human being but only having all the virtues to a very high degree...I would like to ask you ..when you're thinking that I am a classical theist what is it that you think you have chosen ? What do you expect this ..experience? state of affairs ? to be 

Below I would try to think of one possible way you are maybe thinking here ..

but first lets sort these things out ..

 I think that all that is necessary for there to be meaning in life is (a) someone to live for a certain set of purposes, and (b) there to be an objective scale of value concerning those purposes. So long as those are possible in an atheistic world (most people think they are. I am still deciding for myself) then meaning is possible in an atheistic world. What classical theism adds is the possibility of ultimate purpose: a purpose which we were made to pursue, one proper to our essence and which we can find ultimate fulfillment in. Ultimate purpose construed in this way is only possible under theism, and it is an obvious advantage over atheism.  This is what I was talking about used the phrase “higher dimension of meaningfulness.”

Now here you do a different thing ..here you suggest that your understanding of meaning of life is dependant on our best theory of practical reasoning and that we can know what these ..in the sense of robust realism..so Its probably the same in a theistic world and an atheistic world..but then you add this Higher dimension of meaningfulness..This is what I mean by you making sceptical theistic move..

I am not familiar with the sceptical theist point of view concerning meaning in life. I have a passing familiarity to their response to the problem of evil, and I don’t like it.

I am not saying that there is a sceptical theist point of view of meaning of life...but what move you are making is very parallel to their response to problem of evil...
basically .understanding meaning of life as a positive feature as described earlier , I think if I try to formulate your views its this thesis that...All the positive features we know of are not representative of all the positive features there actually are .(correct?) this is what I take you to mean by Higher dimensions of meaning or the ambiguous ultimate purpose.. 

The really theistic part about your account is really this ..that maybe there is more even though we can't tell or describe it right now... This is what I mean when I say you seem to make a sceptical theistic move..

so If I try to make sense of it..maybe you are not saying two different things...maybe by union with God ..you just mean that If we peruse our ends according to reason..its the way the ultimate order of things is..you might say something like ..union means. we peruse Goodness and God is goodness itself....or something like that..

but its unclear why would everyone else agree with you that this is what gives our lives meaning... but still with these in mind you might construct sound criticism of their arguments..







 

Last edited by Calhoun (3/28/2017 10:28 am)

     Thread Starter
 

3/28/2017 7:58 pm  #14


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Saying that union with God is not unlike union with persons would make more sense if it one believes In a personal God

I guess I would just ask what you mean by "personal." All I really care about is whether the God of classical theism can do the things which are necessary for a relationship. I listed a few:  2nd personal connection, shared attention, self-revelation of important needs or desires, responsiveness etc. Can Actus Purus do these things? If yes, then I don't care if you call it personal or not. 

Perhaps I should level at this point that I don't subscribe to the belief that we can't talk about God as if he is a being among others. What is more, I don't think Thomas Aquinas subscribed to that belief either (and I am an aspiring Thomist). Aquinas describes God both as esse and as an id quod est.  I think he is right about that.

but in case of A Completely simple Unchanging First Cause of All that is ..we can't conceive of it that way....

Yeah... I just disagree with this. 

I am not saying that there is a sceptical theist point of view of meaning of life...but what move you are making is very parallel to their response to problem of evil...
basically .understanding meaning of life as a positive feature as described
earlier , I think if I try to formulate your views its this thesis that...All the positive features we know of are not representative of all the positive features there actually are .(correct?) this is what I take you to mean by Higher dimensions of meaning or the ambiguous ultimate purpose.. 

Okay. I don't exactly follow, but that is probably because of my ignorance of the details of skeptical theism. I am just going to outline my view as clearly as I can and see if that helps. 

Let's call the amount of meaningfulness possible in an atheistic world. Under classical theism there would still be but also whatever additional meaning that can be gained from ultimate purpose (where ultimate purpose is a purpose which we were made to pursue, one proper to our essence and which we can find ultimate fulfillment in). So the meaningfulness possible in the world classical theism describes is + ultimate purpose.  This is what I meant when I used the phrase "higher dimension of meaning," that classical theism has all the possibility of meaning atheism has, ie. X, but then adds onto it something more. 

Union with God is the theory concerning ultimate purpose that I subscribe to. I recognize that their could be others.  

so If I try to make sense of it..maybe you are not saying two different things...maybe by union with God ..you just mean that If we peruse our ends according to reason..its the way the ultimate order of things is..you might say something like ..union means. we peruse Goodness and God is goodness itself....or something likethat..

Not quite. I mean something more like the sort of union we can have with other people, but with God. It's not a perfect comparison since God is very different from other people, but it is closer than just contemplating Goodness. Under classical theism, the Good can act and think and love. So imagine if the Good loved you, thought about you, and responded to you, and that you reciprocated. Something like that. 

 

3/28/2017 10:41 pm  #15


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Calhoun wrote:

First here 

I don’t have a thorough description. Union with God is not unlike union with persons in its essential characteristics: 2nd personal connection, shared attention, self-revelation of important needs or desires, responsiveness etc.

Saying that union with God is not unlike union with persons would make more sense if it one believes In a personal God, because then as they say He is one of us,and one of our own...just a very perfect person who has all the great making properties, who can be conceived as a very perfect friend,or a very loving Father ...so it makes sense to talk about that way..but in case of A Completely simple Unchanging First Cause of All that is ..we can't conceive of it that way....

​This seems to misunderstand what God is in classical theism. It seems to equate being simple with privation, rather than fullness. God is not in any sense less than a very loving father or friend; he is love or the essence of love. Having a true union with him would be an infinite unfolding of the highest potentials available in our relationships with friends or family, except it would not suffer any of the limitations inherent in the relationships of created beings. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to say that what we can experience with a limited, finite being we cannot get from the infinite ground of being and, to use the Platonic term, supreme quality.

Anyway, what is meant by meaning in the link in the OP, and what is meant by meaning in modern talk of the meaning of life, seems simply to be a matter of the objective nature of the good, and perhaps how that determines the objective nature of the good in our individual lives. Given the classical theistic understandings of the good, I don't see how this would be especially troubling for them.
 

 

3/29/2017 3:09 am  #16


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Quod-est-Devium,

Ok I will now proceed to responding to your remarks on their arguments..

Argument One: The authors admit that this argument is undone if one distinguishes between purposes we chose for ourselves and the purpose for which God made us. They write in the conclusion: "For instance, maybe God created us for some purpose, and our lives have ultimate significance only insofar as we fulfill this purpose" (which is what my account does). They then move on to argument two to demonstrate this cannot be, so argument one isn't relevant where my account is concerned. 

Well I would have been willing to say that you do successfully show that this argument is inadequate but ..For what purpose have God created us? you say its having union with God  or personal relationship with God ..but (even granting that you can make sense of it) its still far from clear ..Exactly What one would find so satisfying about it to peruse this particular propose..How does one know that this particular purpose is only objective purpose? What if one doesn't enjoy this purpose or find it particularly meaningful?

Argument Two:
As you have probably already guessed, I would just reject (3)...

do you mean to say reject (4) here ? 

there is another part of the above argument that confuses me. UP is a claim about ultimate significance/meaning, not about meaning in general. A theist can accept (as I do) that meaning in general is possible without God but maintain that there is a higher dimension of meaningfulness, ie. ultimate meaning, that still depends on the existence of God. I think this is enough to justify the intuition that most of us have that a world without God would lose something important as concerns meaning in life.

What is this ultimate meaning that only depends on existence of God? How can one identify it? 

To me, the relevant difference is obvious: human parents are creators of an instance of a particular form, God is the creator of the form itself. Imagine there was a task you needed to perform and you invent the perfect tool do it. The tool is so perfect that you make several molds for other people to make their own. Now imagine I got a hold of a mold, made the tool, but then used it for some other task, one completely different than the one you designed it for. Should I expect the tool to be perfect for my task just because I made it? Obviously not. If God exists he would be the designer of the human form and could fashion it to be perfect for the end he desired. Such an end would be proper to our very essence and thus be fulfilling to a degree that is impossible in a world without God. What is more, in classical theism God is not just some being who is good, he is goodness itself. If it isn't meaningful to pursue the purpose that the Good itself designed you to pursue specifically then I don't know what is. 

This has some relevance to their argument four ..I would be interested in your discussion of it later on..
Again,

Your criticism might be right but first you need to say something about all these puzzles with your views..

As they go on to say.., God's role as creator does not, by itself, guarantee that the purpose we find
most satisfying is the purpose for which God created us. Perhaps it would be much more
satisfying if we chose our purpose for ourselves than if our purpose was preselected for us? ..
read till they conclude that a) is problematic.. it answers some of your criticism...so you still have your work cut out for you..

thoughts?







 

     Thread Starter
 

3/29/2017 10:45 am  #17


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Calhoun, 

Well I would have been willing to say that you do successfully show that this argument is inadequate but ..For what purpose have God created us? you say its having union with God  or personal relationship with God ..but (even granting that you can make sense of it) its still far from clear ..Exactly What one would find so satisfying about it to peruse this particular propose.

Well first off, if our interest is to defeat the argument of the paper and make room for theistic interpretations of meaning then it isn't necessary for me to show that a particular theistic interpretation is actual, I only need to show that it is possible. If argument one was the only argument they offered against theistic interpretations of meaning, the mere possibility of separating God's purpose from our own purposes is enough to defeat it and make room for theism. 

That said, talking about mere possibilities can be unsatisfying, so I accept your question. Why should we think that union with God is a satisfying purpose of dedicating one's life to?... I think with any suggestion of ultimate purpose there is the possibility of someone asking "what's so special about that?" Having a close positive relationship with the ground of being, the supreme creator, and Goodness itself seems to me prima facie meaningful. In fact, it seems so meaningful that I almost feel guilty that I am offered it. I don't deserve something so good. Why should we expect to find it satisfying? Again... I just don't see how it couldn't be, but if you are unconvinced I could point out the many instances testimony to the fact that it is (like the section I quoted from Augustine's confessions). 

How does one know that this particular purpose is only objective purpose? What if one doesn't enjoy this purpose or find it particularly meaningful?

I haven't claimed that it is the only objective purpose. Actually, I said the opposite, that so long as there is any objective scale of value concerning purposes then we could judge that some purposes are objectively more worth our effort than others. Most people believe that an objective scale of value concerning purposes is possible in a world without God, so most people believe that objective purpose is possible without God. 

But perhaps you meant to ask how I know that union with God is the only ultimate purpose (ie. the purpose for which God made us). To be honest, I didn't form the belief through natural theology but revealed theology. I am not sure how else we could now it. Knowing the purpose for why God made us would mean we knew something specific about the thoughts and intentions of God. The only reliable way to know God's thoughts and intentions would be for him to reveal them to us. 

I suppose if a gun was to my head to prove it via natural theology I would try the following avenue: that whatever purpose God would create us for would be a purpose that is ultimately fulfilling. That is, it would be one that is suited for the essence of humanity. I could then try and argue that the only purpose for which mankind was perfectly suited and can find ultimately fulfilling is union with God. Something like that. I know that is more a sketch of an argument than a real argument, but that is all I have. 

do you mean to say reject (4) here?

Yeah, sure. I think I would reject (3) as well. If I am remembering correctly, (3) is the route by which they try and demonstrate (4). In the paper the specifically refer you back to their first argument as a defense of (3). 

What is this ultimate meaning that only depends on existence of God? How can one identify it?
 

I think I answered that above. Again, just to be thorough, the point I was making in that paragraph is not undermined if I am unable to show that a specific theory of ultimate purpose is true. Showing that theism adds something to meaning in life is enough. whatever that "something" is. 

As they go on to say.., "God's role as creator does not, by itself, guarantee that the purpose we find
most satisfying is the purpose for which God created us. Perhaps it would be much more
satisfying if we chose our purpose for ourselves than if our purpose was preselected for us?" ..read till they conclude that a) is problematic.. it answers some of your criticism...so you still have your work cut out for you.

Right, yeah I didn't comment on this directly for space purposes. You are right to point it out, but I don't think it is the stronger of their two objections to (a).

They are right that God's role as creator doesn't by itself guarantee that the purpose he chooses for us will be the purpose we find the most satisfying. But God's role as creator plus his being perfectly good does. A God who is perfectly good could conceive of the form of man, know the purpose for which it was perfectly suited (ie. would find ultimate fulfillment), and would only actualize man if the purpose for which they would find ultimate fulfillment is the very purpose for which he creates them. If God's purpose was other than the one we are perfectly suited then it does seem that he would be creating us in a dilemma, where we either live lives that are less than perfectly good for us, and thus neglect God's purpose, or follow God and never flourish to our fullest potential. I don't think that is consistent with God's perfectly good nature. 

But here is where the real force of their argument reveals itself: in NG we are devoted to the same purposes as G, so we would be getting the same goods in a world without God as one with him, wouldn't we?

No... Let me offer a counterexample, an account of ultimate purpose that would not give the same goods in NG as in G. Here it is: the ultimate purpose of man is loving union with God. If this is man's ultimate purpose, would a person who pursues it get the same goods in NG? Obviously not! In NG there is no God for him to be unified with! His efforts would be futile.
 
Here is a parody of Megill and Linford's argument: imagine a man sets out on a pilgrimage to Mecca, but he does it in two worlds, one (M) in which Mecca exists, and another (NM) in which Mecca does not exist. But in NM his journey is devoted toward the same end as M, so whatever good he gets from his journey would be the same in NM as M. Therefore, Mecca is not necessary for having a satisfying pilgrimage to Mecca. 

Although, in a way, my critique on this point is unfair, since simply by accepting the semantics of "purpose" as different from "meaning in life," moves Megill and Linford's paper outside of the context for which it was written. I still think it is the division of "purpose," "meaning," and "value," that ultimate defeats their arguments. However, they should have made that division themselves.  
 

 

3/30/2017 3:29 am  #18


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

I'll have more to say about your remarks later ..right now I think you should be done with their remaining arguments first ....what do you think? 

     Thread Starter
 

3/30/2017 11:58 am  #19


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Okay, I will share my thoughts of the remaining arguments. 

Argument Three: 

Argument three is pretty good. Since it argues against strictly theistic meanings of life, ie. that meaning in life is only possible in a world with God, and my position is a more inclusive theistic theory, ie. that meaning might be possible without God, but God still adds something rich to our account of meaning, I am content to ignore it. That said, there is something that I think the argument misses. Also, I think the argument could possibly be modified to attack my position, so I will comment on those both below. 

First, what I think the argument misses. The authors begin their argument with this inference: Suppose that God is necessary for our lives to have meaning.  But then, the meaning of life must arise through some sort of relation, whatever it might be, that we stand in with respect to God; for if no such relation between us and God is needed for life to have meaning[i], then our lives could have [/i]meaning independently of God. This is where I think the go wrong because there is a type of strictly theistic theory of meaning that does not hold that meaning must be a relation between us and God. It is all theories that think meaning depends on something (y), where is not God, but is something that can only exist in a world in which God exists. For example, suppose someone believed, like me, that meaning is found in living for a purpose that is objectively valuable, but also believed that things can only be objectively valuable in a world with God. This hypothetical person would not be convinced by argument three, and rightly. However, it is possible that it is this sort of move that Megill and Linford tried to pre-emptively avoid with their distinction between epistemic possibility and metaphysical possibility. I am still hazy on those concepts.

Now for how I the argument might be modified. If the author's adopted the language I introduced they could argue in this way:

(1) Ultimate purpose is the purpose that is most fulfilling and gives a life the most meaning.

(2) Ultimate purpose depends on some relation between us and God (ie. the possibility of union with God)

(3) We have to be aware of God to be able to choose a relationship with him.

(4) There are cases of "blameless non-belief" about God 

(5) Therefore, some people live lives with less meaning and fulfillment for reasons that are outside of their control. 

(6) Living lives with less meaning and fulfillment for reasons outside of your control is an instance of gratuitous suffering.

(7) Gratuitous suffering is incompatible with the existence of God. 

(8) Therefore, God must both exist and cannot exist under ultimate purpose theory.
 
(9) Therefore, ultimate purpose theory is not true. 

How should I respond to this? I am not entirely sure of the best way to respond, I have a few theories that I am still working out. One promising response is this: under classical theism, God is the same as the Good, and why there might be cases of "blameless non-belief" concerning God, it is less likely that there are such cases concerning the Good. Everyone should know that the Good exists, even if they don't know every detail about the Good.  Therefore, people can choose to pursue the Good and in this way pursue their ultimate purpose even though they don't know that the Good and God are the same. 

I should add that under my worldview, and the worldview of many other theists, there is an afterlife where all become aware of the existence of God. I think the suffering we experience on this side of eternity serves the purpose of orienting us towards God (or the Good, for those who don't know that they are the same), or, at the least, stop us from drifting farther from him. With this view, it is not so clear 6 is correct. 

Argument Four

Argument four is a weird one. I have a sense that they are missing something important in the theories they are drawing from (DCT, divine simplicity), but I don't have enough knowledge of those subjects to put my finger on it. Regardless, argument four is completely undone by the division of meaning I have been using. They posit this dilemma to the theist:  "do our lives have meaning because God decrees that they do, or do our lives have meaning independently of God?" I am happy to gore myself on the second horn, but still, maintain that God adds something rich to my account of meaning.  

The last argument they make I have already addressed in a previous post. 

 

3/30/2017 5:26 pm  #20


Re: Classical theism,God and source of meaning of life..

Quod-est-devium,

Ok I will start from here..

Well first off, if our interest is to defeat the argument of the paper and make room for theistic interpretations of meaning then it isn't necessary for me to show that a particular theistic interpretation is actual, I only need to show that it is possible. If argument one was the only argument they offered against theistic interpretations of meaning, the mere possibility of separating God's purpose from our own purposes is enough to defeat it and make room for theism. 

Well you're right that this particular argument might not theoretically succeed given some of your views but is might be your purpose and in best interests of theists that they actually convince their critics that our considerations about meaning of life should make theism more justifiable than theism ..in our final assessment of pros and cons of worldviews ...(I'll have more to say relating to this blow)..

And I think you too realize this point  ...

That said, talking about mere possibilities can be unsatisfying, so I accept your question. Why should we think that union with God is a satisfying purpose of dedicating one's life to?... I think with any suggestion of ultimate purpose there is the possibility of someone asking "what's so special about that?" Having a close positive relationship with the ground of being, the supreme creator, and Goodness itself seems to me prima facie meaningful. In fact, it seems so meaningful that I almost feel guilty that I am offered it. I don't deserve something so good. Why should we expect to find it satisfying? Again... I just don't see how it couldn't be, but if you are unconvinced I could point out the many instances testimony to the fact that it is (like the section I quoted from Augustine's confessions). 

Well look the problem isn't that it doesn't seem Prima Facie meaningful...the problem is that it seems very hard to contemplate the content of  this relationship..
Maybe I should try to be more clear on this question ..for example ..what makes ordinary personal relationships meaning full is their content like our friendship with our colleagues is meaningful because I enjoy their company,they talk to me about all the interesting topics,they pay for food bills ..etc ,or ones relationship with their spouse is meaningful because of ..well all the goods that come from marriage ...and Like my correspondence with you is meaningful because we are discussing a very interesting topic...Its these goods in context of relationships that make it more or less meaningful or which really define these relationships (you might find some of it more meaningful than the rest)

but one can't grasp what would be that qualitative content of our relationship with First Cause which is analogously predicated as good,wise,powerful or as a person ...Its that what you need to identify that would allow one to evaluate whether this relationship is most meaningful or not..only then can one evaluate whether this Is so satisfying and so meaningful that one would sacrifice everything in his life to just be able to enter it...

(To Be Continued)....




 

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum