Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Let Us Pray

Incentive, as in reward? There seems to be a contradiction in the question, if there is incentive then surely it is no longer good for sake of goodness.

Presumably an ethical atheist is truly someone who is "good for the sake of goodness". A Theist may be good for the sake of God, or good for the sake of their own afterlife, atheists have no such motivation.

What is the point of art? What is the point of music?

I find myself in a world astonishing beyond all description, i am a small aware piece of the universe, 24 years ago my eyes opened and in a few decades they will close again, but for the tiny sliver of time that they are open i get to experience and try to understand reality, that is its own reward.

You ask what is the point, what is my function, what is my purpose? I reject the validity of the question: I do not require a cosmic function, art transcends simple ideas of function and life is art.

You're all wrong!

Being an atheist, a theist, or a deist does not give your life any meaning or any purpose.

The only true meaning of life is THE FORCE.
The only valid purpose of life is THE FORCE.

If you do not live by THE FORCE, your life is pointless.

Let us chant unto each other:

<dd>May THE FORCE be with you.</dd>

An interesting tirade from one who calls himself "Siddhartha". You need look no farther than this for a clue to my "taking yourself too seriously" comment.

Just some more "empty rhetoric" from my feeble intellect.

Maybe I did misunderstand then. But if you feel that man has this limited capacity to understand, you're still asserting that you had the ability to break free of that limitation, whereas Jeffrey hasnt/cant. Correct? Arent those just different words to say the same thing?

No, that's not it, and no it's not just different wording to say the same thing. The fact that I don't have any more (or any less, which is an important point to things) capacity to understand is the whole point. It's not that I have a greater capacity to understand, it's that I acknowledge man's limited capacity, and Jeffrey doesn't. He thinks man can figure out the answer to everything, that science and man's mind is all that's needed, and if it doesn't pass this test it can't possibly be real - a far more arrogant point of view than admitting that man, and science, has limited capacity to prove, understand, or explain every single thing and opening my mind to the possibility that something beyond man's or science's understanding might exist.

In agreement with Larry's point, all you have to think about is what we 'knew' 100, 200 or 500 years ago, versus what we 'know' today. How much of what we have 'scientifically' proven today will turn out to be plain old false, grossly misinterpreted or only the small, small tip of the iceberg?

The one thing that has been consistent about man and his viewpoint is hubris, to be convinced that he is the pinnacle of creation.

Cop out. You have clearly given the impression that you come from an Islamic background. Please, don't make me go digging through your old posts. If you are, that's fine. I actually have appreciated your perspectives on this forum (if not your ascerbic tongue). If you're not, then excuse me for my "stereo-typing." I didn't intend to come across as derisive and apologize if I did.

As to me being ultra-feminist: now who's stereo-typing?

I'm not an aetheist (far from it), but I see the whole heck thing a little differently. You see fear is one of the lowest of human emotions. If your only reason for being good is because you fear the devil you aren't really committed to being good. You're avoiding the bad. Have you ever read any near death experiences? Most of the ones I've read have a life review, where you relive your life, but you feel the effect of your thoughts, words and deeds on everyone whose life you touched. There is no judgment, just the experience, there is no heck, no Devil, no river Styx. Here's a near death experience that's quite incredible, check it out.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html

Why should I?

Science is a wonderful tool but becomes a vehicle for self-delusion when it is accepted as a proxy for that which it is most useful in investigating. That is, reality.

IMHO people can be good for the sake of goodness. I have very close friends who are atheists but are probably more ethical and moral than many Believers. We've had countless arguments about God. They feel for me because they think I'm being duped. I feel for them because I feel they are missing out or for any bad experiences they may have had. Bottom line is we accept each other for who we are. They don't set out to change me and I don't try and save them. They're adults and they're not stupid.

Goodness is innate IMHO.

Ironically every aspect of science acknowledges man's limitations, the scientific method itself is designed around them. It's success is because of it's error correcting machinery.

Infact science can overcome even our conceptual limitations because it has access to an abstract language that is not bound by them: mathematics.

We may or may not be able to model every aspect of the universe, but the only chance we have at truth is squandered if we turn our backs on reason.

Ah you've hit upon something there, we all like to interpret our actions in light of our views, a monotheist may believe that he is not killing others because he is adhering to his concept of God, the same is true for many other rationals for ethics. I justify my ethics through utilitarian principles, but really at a fundamental level these explanations cannot be the truth, because at our core we all have similar ideas, how can it be that numerous cultures with completely different theoretical concepts have very similar core ethics? Clearly something else is going on. At some level core-ethics or atleast the propensity to follow core ethics is hardwired.

If you look at our behaviour in an objective light you can provide explanations in terms of social and biological evolution, ethics exist because it benefits us to live in society. Our nature has evolved to include ethics because doing so benefits us. (One can interpret that inlight of a God guiding evolution if one wishes).

At least your clear on that point.

you're

That's not at all what I get from Jeffrey. I think he very clearly understands man's limited capacity and accepts that we dont comprehend everything. Thats a very basic tenat of all science. My impression is that his objection is in believing in made up fairy tales in lieu of a true understanding. But I dont presume to speak for him. But I think you're projecting attitudes onto him that arent there.

We may or may not be able to model every aspect of the universe, but the only chance we have at truth is squandered if we turn our backs on reason.

Where do you get the idea that understanding and accepting the limitations of man and science is turning one's back on reason? Hardly so - it is in fact turning one's back on reason to refuse to accept the obvious, which is that the further science and man goes, the more one realizes just how little is actually known.

Evolution, for example. I readily accept the fact that all things adapt and change - "evolve" if you like that word. I do *not* accept the extremes of evolutional thought however, that says man used to be a monkey, which used to be a fish, which used to be a virus. *Reason* says it isn't possible, and science has yet to prove it. Take your feet for example.... if we evolved from something else in a process of survival of the fittest, each "version" of man improving over eons - why do you need shoes?

*Reason* is a word that can be used like a double edged sword. An atheist might say a person who believes in a higher power isn't using reason and is therefore a simple minded fool. The person who believes in a higher power can also make the case that the atheist has tossed reason out the window, because reason won't square with the science they view as the end of the discussion. Ultimately, *both* views come down to faith, both views constitute religion, and reason can be used for and against both views.

Ever think about why we listen to music - pretty senseless if one thinks about it. Sounds of different frequencies that cause pleasurable feelings?

Uh huh...what if a friend says that music is a waste of time?

You explain that music has the ability to make you feel really good - a really special place - that you value music and it is an important part of your life. You say that it uplifts you and that you feel that your enjoyment of music is a gift - one you appreciate.

The other person says you're getting high and mighty with him - that you're condescending and preachie about music. They think you're putting on "airs" - trying to sound sophisticated and above them.

When she met me, my "ex-wife" thought it was wonderful that I liked classical music - because in her mind that was a "classy" thing. She liked the concept better than the reality. She actually hated classical music and hated more that I spent time with it - that it was a part of my life and not hers.

God (or fate or whatever) has given each of us different gifts - love of music, a heightened sense of curiosity, a greater propensity for spirtuality - or sometimes different flavors of spirtuality.

When any of us speak of those things that are closest to us - our "gifts" or "blessings" - it can be easy for others to feel looked down upon.

I rarely think this is the case.

I think in most instances this is just someone being grateful for the "gift" or "blessing" of music, of feeling a sense of grace or sense of wonder. I think those who have something they feel special in their life - wish that others could have the same joy that they do.

Am I "better than you" if I really love music? Of course not...but I still feel "blessed" or having a gift that someone else may not have. I would not look down on someone for not feeling as I do towards music. If anything, it makes me feel more grateful that I do have a love of music.

K

sorry for double post

My impression is that his objection is in believing in made up fairy tales in lieu of a true understanding. But I dont presume to speak for him. But I think you're projecting attitudes onto him that arent there.

But for him to dismiss God as nothing but a made up fairy tale is *Jeffrey* showing a lack of capacity to understand, and is arrogance on *his* part. That is my whole point. We're right back to where we started.