Theism makes the universe boring -- legitimate argument or not?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Theism makes the universe boring -- legitimate argument or not? » Theism makes the universe boring -- legitimate argument or not?

Theism makes the universe boring -- legitimate argument or not?

Theism makes the universe boring -- legitimate argument or not?

DeusEx
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/23/08 - 10:49 PM: Subject: Theism makes the universe boring -- legitimate argument or not?	#1
I think the reason I dislike religion is that I think its artificiality is revealed by people holding onto it out of fear that without it we would descend into meaninglessness, that humanity would cease to be special, and the universe would no longer be interesting. When discussing with a theist, I often think that part of their motivation is a feeling that the universe would be profoundly boring and depressing without a God figure, and I think my motivation in disagreeing with them is that I think it's profoundly boring and depressing with a God figure. I think the universe is more interesting without objective prescriptions or core values of some higher consciousness, that choice is more difficult and more meaningful if it isn't only for the sake of playing a guessing game with the boogey-man. Of course I can't produce hard evidence, but I have this feeling (faith?) that the hard-to-accept facts in life (I am gay / there is no God) are more often correct than the ones we wish for, but that also they are not usually as bad as we think (homosexuality is natural and acceptable / without God the world is still interesting and special). Am I out of my mind? Has anyone else thought this way?

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 43

Posted 04/24/08 - 01:33 PM:	#2
The universe doesn't have to be interesting (and it is pretty amazing either way). BTW, the "homosexuality is natural" thing is an appeal to nature (a formal fallacy). It actually doesn't matter whether its natural or not. (I offer this because it is a better rebuttal to the homosexuality is unnatural argument put forward by bigots).
"Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Women’s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 04/24/08 - 03:34 PM:	#3
Meaningfulness and interestingness are subjective traits as far as I can tell. The universe or a certain type of universe could be interesting to one person and uninteresting to another. It could have one meaning or value to one person and another meaning or value to another person. In analogy, pizza could taste good to one person and taste bad to another person. Neither opinion is wrong and they are compatible because the qualities (taste, meaning, interestingness) are subjective.
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 234

Posted 04/24/08 - 05:17 PM:	#4
DeusEx wrote: I think the universe is more interesting without objective prescriptions or core values of some higher consciousness, that choice is more difficult and more meaningful if it isn't only for the sake of playing a guessing game with the boogey-man. In other words, the universe is more interesting if you consider yourself God? Of course I can't produce hard evidence, but I have this feeling (faith?) that the hard-to-accept facts in life (I am gay / there is no God) are more often correct than the ones we wish for, but that also they are not usually as bad as we think (homosexuality is natural and acceptable / without God the world is still interesting and special). I am not quite sure I understand what you mean about 'hard-to-accept' versus 'wishful' facts. Could you clarify? Does it have to do with reason/emotion/desire? As for homosexuality being natural and acceptable, it depends on what you mean by homosexuality (desires and/or actions), what determines if something is 'natural,' and to whom or what standard it is 'acceptable.' Floyd wrote: Meaningfulness and interestingness are subjective traits as far as I can tell. I agree. It just depends on what one chooses to 'subject' their meaning too. Of course there are 'objective' consequences for that choice. If I choose to make 'eating chocolate' the meaning of life, there will be some objective consequences. One being that if placed between a piece of chocolate and saving a person's life, I would let the person die so that I could eat the chocolate unless I thought saving their life would allow me to eat more chocolate. Other consequences would likely include my physical health declining, etc. Now (assuming free will) if man has a specific purpose, and man chooses to oppose that purpose, then there will be logical consequences.

DeusEx
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/25/08 - 06:13 PM:	#5
Floyd wrote: Meaningfulness and interestingness are subjective traits as far as I can tell. The universe or a certain type of universe could be interesting to one person and uninteresting to another. It could have one meaning or value to one person and another meaning or value to another person. In analogy, pizza could taste good to one person and taste bad to another person. Neither opinion is wrong and they are compatible because the qualities (taste, meaning, interestingness) are subjective. I agree that there is a distinction between meaningfulness and interestingness. But I guess my post is in response to those confusing them in some way already -- those who think that belief in God is necessary because otherwise the universe or humanity would not be special enough. Maybe that means I'm arguing against a psychological problem rather than a philosophical one. Homosexuality was just meant as an example of things not necessarily being as bad as one predicted after critical thinking.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.