|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 26, 2021 9:01:00 GMT -5
I've read a book once about billionaires and their mindset. And there's two things I remember: 1) they do what they love and they love doing it and they only do that, all day every day 2) before they do something, they think it thru thoroughly and when they do something, they go all in, there's no plan B, all eggs in one basket. Now, from the outside that may look like 1) they really work hard, mostly a 70+ hour week and 2) that they are bold risk takers. But when you interview them, you'll see that that's not really the case. Since they love what they are doing, it's without resistance and mostly effortless and almost like playing. And since they envision and think things thru thoroughly before they leap, the risk of landing in the ditch is almost zero. The dumb luck thing is exactly what alignment is. It's like living in a magical bubble. And that's how it is supposed to be, ye know?!  Yes, money can make everyday things a lot easier, like when you go shopping, you don't even need to look a a price tag anymore because whatever the price is, you can afford it, and you are also much closer to instant manifestations, because money can make a lot of things happen. However, there's also a catch to this. When you've got more than enough money and you don't really think things thru, you end up with a lot of unwanted manifestations really fast. In that sense, money is only going to amplify your problems of sloppy thinking. Another thing is that once you've moved to a different level of financial abundance, you are playing in a different arena with a different set of standards and suddenly things that you previously thought to be important become a nonissue and other things that you didn't even think of suddenly become an issue. And the goal post keeps moving, of course. You adjust and calibrate to ever rising standards. When you're used to having at least 500 dollars in your pocket because it allows you the freedom to buy whatever you want based on your personal standards, you may feel abundant and at ease, but when you are suddenly down to 100 dollars, you may feel a bit uneasy. Similarly, Warren Buffet once said that he has always about 1.5 billion dollars in cash ready which would allow him to basically by any company he likes whenever he wants to. And when his cash is down to 1 billion, he said that's when starts feeling a bit uneasy and gets a little worried. Now, on quality of feeling level, what's the difference between Warren with his 1 billion and you with your 100 dollars? That's hilarious, but I totally get how that would work. Yes, that's how it often goes. My wife told me the other day about a colleague who was planning to buy a new house but struggled scraping together the money needed and was complaining about their unsatisfactory financial situation. Now, if you'd only know this piece of information, you'd probably think, here is another family struggling to get ahead financially. Butt... these people already own several houses and cars and all kinds of other valuables and yet they still feel as if they were at the very bottom of the wealth scale. Like Warren, these people are in need of some perspective!  But I guess that's what happens when the intellect runs your life. You are losing all perspective of what is really important and what isn't, of what is of true value and what isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 26, 2021 9:04:52 GMT -5
Of course it can be in alignment with LOA and following the path of least resistance - YOUR path of least resistance, that is. It may not be someone else's path of least resistance though. It all depends on where your starting point was. If you were at the bottom of the emotional scale, at hopelessness and despair, then going to a protest would probably breathe new life into your being and give you a new purpose. And that would feel really good, even though in absolute terms, it would rank rather low. Also, path of least resistance is what feels best, it's not always the easiest path, i.e. what your autopilot suggests. That's not the path of least resistance. A lot of people think they go with the path of least resistance, but what they actually do is just going by habit or by what the strongest vibration in their environment demands. yep good points there In a sense, the ideal is when the relative terms aligns with the absolute terms. This actually relates to what I've said about Tony Robbins idea about people's core needs (beyond physical needs). Everyone has the same needs, but equally, everyone's getting them met (or attempting to get them met) in a million different ways. Ideally, we want to be getting our needs met in a fulfilling, joyful and healthy way. Even the 'enlightened' have these same needs, they're just getting them met in a pretty cool and unusual way. What's so cool about enlightenment? You aren't even allowed to get angry anymore or you'll lose your enlightened status! No thank you!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 26, 2021 9:14:15 GMT -5
Ha yes, great bit of TV. Did you watch the whole series? www.imdb.com/title/tt8694364 There's a speech the Gran gives in the last episode about how we got from there to here and, for me, it felt that that speech was the first thing the writer put down and the rest of the show grew around it: The clip posted I saw in a podcast of some alt media channel. And I thought that would fit right in here. I wasn't aware that's a whole series. Interesting that the BBC would broadcast something like this, at this time. As Laughter mentioned, the sci-fi writers have been very prophetic in their writings about things to come, to the degree that one may wonder, did they just see that coming and so they wrote it down to warn everyone or were they told by someone to write this down as some sort of blueprint so that later no one could say "I had no idea!"? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 26, 2021 11:58:43 GMT -5
Haven't made a study of what successful people think about how they got successful, but I have heard two conflicting reports on the notion of "do what you love and the money will follow". And while I didn't keep track of exactly who was on which side, my intuition would tell me that people who failed multiple times before succeeding would most likely reject it. One example of this that is counter to my intuition is Rush Limbaugh, who tried multiple careers before making it big, and he fully embraced the "do what you love" deal. Internal conflict is an issue, no doubt. I've had my ups and downs in terms of earning and yes, when I was committed, with no 2nd-guessing and full confidence, the action and money flowed, and vice-versa. Hill's last point is very much related to the old adage, "the rich get richer". And one can absorb this in one of two ways. If someone attaches a victimhood to it then it will hold them back, but - and again, this is from experience - if one just accepts it as reality (cold, hard, or otherwise), then the next logical conclusion is that you have to either be of service to or have some other relationship with people who have money in order to give them a reason to give you some. That's about as simple as it gets. I don't know Esther's bio, but most of the people whom I've heard as advocates of "do what you love" have encountered what most other's would consider to be unusually good luck at some point. Also, many of them never had a bad turn after that lucky strike. Now, luck has several facets to it: it involves being in the right place at the right time, and much of that is just dumb luck .. but, it also involves doing the right thing in the right way at that right place and right time - that might seem like luck to someone looking from the outside in, but it's not so much, really. Finally, while money has a major potential to make many people miserable, there are another group for whom it makes it very easy to be happy. If they're happy long enough, then they're more likely to start saying "do what you love and the money will follow", but for most people, in most places, at most times, it is incredibly impractical advice. The world is full of all sorts of people, but it seems to me that the common householder who makes do and optimizes whatever opportunity is available to them, works hard, stays honest, and is committed to their family is the primary reason the rest of everyone else doesn't starve naked out in the elements. I've read a book once about billionaires and their mindset. And there's two things I remember: 1) they do what they love and they love doing it and they only do that, all day every day 2) before they do something, they think it thru thoroughly and when they do something, they go all in, there's no plan B, all eggs in one basket. Now, from the outside that may look like 1) they really work hard, mostly a 70+ hour week and 2) that they are bold risk takers. But when you interview them, you'll see that that's not really the case. Since they love what they are doing, it's without resistance and mostly effortless and almost like playing. And since they envision and think things thru thoroughly before they leap, the risk of landing in the ditch is almost zero. The dumb luck thing is exactly what alignment is. It's like living in a magical bubble. And that's how it is supposed to be, ye know?! Yes, money can make everyday things a lot easier, like when you go shopping, you don't even need to look a a price tag anymore because whatever the price is, you can afford it, and you are also much closer to instant manifestations, because money can make a lot of things happen. However, there's also a catch to this. When you've got more than enough money and you don't really think things thru, you end up with a lot of unwanted manifestations really fast. In that sense, money is only going to amplify your problems of sloppy thinking. Another thing is that once you've moved to a different level of financial abundance, you are playing in a different arena with a different set of standards and suddenly things that you previously thought to be important become a nonissue and other things that you didn't even think of suddenly become an issue. And the goal post keeps moving, of course. You adjust and calibrate to ever rising standards. When you're used to having at least 500 dollars in your pocket because it allows you the freedom to buy whatever you want based on your personal standards, you may feel abundant and at ease, but when you are suddenly down to 100 dollars, you may feel a bit uneasy. Similarly, Warren Buffet once said that he has always about 1.5 billion dollars in cash ready which would allow him to basically by any company he likes whenever he wants to. And when his cash is down to 1 billion, he said that's when starts feeling a bit uneasy and gets a little worried. Now, on quality of feeling level, what's the difference between Warren with his 1 billion and you with your 100 dollars? Yes, that all makes sense. The biggest lesson I ever learned along the lines of your question was going suddenly from a high income to a low income and wondering along the way ".. wow, when did I start needing all of this nonsense??  " And I'd say that your explanation makes it clear why most people who purpose to act on "do what you love" walk into a disaster if they don't first try to align themselves so that they love doing something that will make money. Which is probably the vast majority of them.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 26, 2021 12:10:28 GMT -5
Haven't made a study of what successful people think about how they got successful, but I have heard two conflicting reports on the notion of "do what you love and the money will follow". And while I didn't keep track of exactly who was on which side, my intuition would tell me that people who failed multiple times before succeeding would most likely reject it. One example of this that is counter to my intuition is Rush Limbaugh, who tried multiple careers before making it big, and he fully embraced the "do what you love" deal. Internal conflict is an issue, no doubt. I've had my ups and downs in terms of earning and yes, when I was committed, with no 2nd-guessing and full confidence, the action and money flowed, and vice-versa. Hill's last point is very much related to the old adage, "the rich get richer". And one can absorb this in one of two ways. If someone attaches a victimhood to it then it will hold them back, but - and again, this is from experience - if one just accepts it as reality (cold, hard, or otherwise), then the next logical conclusion is that you have to either be of service to or have some other relationship with people who have money in order to give them a reason to give you some. That's about as simple as it gets.
I don't know Esther's bio, but most of the people whom I've heard as advocates of "do what you love" have encountered what most other's would consider to be unusually good luck at some point. Also, many of them never had a bad turn after that lucky strike. Now, luck has several facets to it: it involves being in the right place at the right time, and much of that is just dumb luck .. but, it also involves doing the right thing in the right way at that right place and right time - that might seem like luck to someone looking from the outside in, but it's not so much, really. Finally, while money has a major potential to make many people miserable, there are another group for whom it makes it very easy to be happy. If they're happy long enough, then they're more likely to start saying "do what you love and the money will follow", but for most people, in most places, at most times, it is incredibly impractical advice. The world is full of all sorts of people, but it seems to me that the common householder who makes do and optimizes whatever opportunity is available to them, works hard, stays honest, and is committed to their family is the primary reason the rest of everyone else doesn't starve naked out in the elements. There was a time in my life when money was very easy for me...I was renting out a property in the UK, working abroad in sales (I was good at the job), and the company paid for my accommodation, bills and food lol. The work itself could be challenging and stressful (same for everyone I guess), but I enjoyed it, and never gave a thought about money. Then one day, I was almost literally gifted £5000 out of nowhere. It was utterly bizarre in the way it happened, and really quite nice. It's a good example of LOA, though at the time I had never heard of LOA, and in a perfect world...I think.... folks would never have to think about it. Then again, when conditions seemingly turn bad...as they do for most folks at some point in their lives.....and our conditioning reacts negatively to those conditions (in one way there's no gap between the negative conditions and the negative conditioning), I think that's when knowing about LOA gets pretty useful. Sue once dreamed up a domain name that we wound up selling for a nice sum like a few months after I registered it - this was in the early days, they contacted us without our having to advertise or search for a buyer, at all. So I can relate to your tale of a sudden, unexpected windfall that appears from nowhere, and like you, it only happened just the once. Now - and this isn't to disparage, simply to offer a different perspective - it's the notion of vibration that I take as the most useful idea from LOA. In terms of how manifestations manifest, it seems to me that there's quite a bit more going on than this one simple rule. There are many types of relationships other than attraction and similarity that the vibration notion can apply to - how one vibration effects the other in detail, how groups attune, the vibes of places and things as opposed to the vibes of people. Seems to me, it has the potential to get pretty complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2021 12:30:18 GMT -5
There was a time in my life when money was very easy for me...I was renting out a property in the UK, working abroad in sales (I was good at the job), and the company paid for my accommodation, bills and food lol. The work itself could be challenging and stressful (same for everyone I guess), but I enjoyed it, and never gave a thought about money. Then one day, I was almost literally gifted £5000 out of nowhere. It was utterly bizarre in the way it happened, and really quite nice. It's a good example of LOA, though at the time I had never heard of LOA, and in a perfect world...I think.... folks would never have to think about it. Then again, when conditions seemingly turn bad...as they do for most folks at some point in their lives.....and our conditioning reacts negatively to those conditions (in one way there's no gap between the negative conditions and the negative conditioning), I think that's when knowing about LOA gets pretty useful. Sue once dreamed up a domain name that we wound up selling for a nice sum like a few months after I registered it - this was in the early days, they contacted us without our having to advertise or search for a buyer, at all. So I can relate to your tale of a sudden, unexpected windfall that appears from nowhere, and like you, it only happened just the once. Now - and this isn't to disparage, simply to offer a different perspective - it's the notion of vibration that I take as the most useful idea from LOA. In terms of how manifestations manifest, it seems to me that there's quite a bit more going on than this one simple rule. There are many types of relationships other than attraction and similarity that the vibration notion can apply to - how one vibration effects the other in detail, how groups attune, the vibes of places and things as opposed to the vibes of people. Seems to me, it has the potential to get pretty complicated. Yes, I believe in 'relationship' (seems like an odd thing to say) and so I think how something comes to pass in my experience (or anyone's experience) connects to environment, groups, relationships etc. The LOA teachings take a purist view, and I understand it's necessary for them to take that view, but I think the reality is more complex. I have met people that are involved with LOA, and believe that the best thing they could do is get away from it...the purism of the teaching can be counterproductive (and somewhat solipsist). For me too, even though I first encountered LOA stuff about 15 years ago, it comes and goes from my life based on what's going on. Especially perhaps during periods where 'choicelessness' has been a theme or part of my experience, and there have been long periods of that theme. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2021 12:38:16 GMT -5
yep good points there In a sense, the ideal is when the relative terms aligns with the absolute terms. This actually relates to what I've said about Tony Robbins idea about people's core needs (beyond physical needs). Everyone has the same needs, but equally, everyone's getting them met (or attempting to get them met) in a million different ways. Ideally, we want to be getting our needs met in a fulfilling, joyful and healthy way. Even the 'enlightened' have these same needs, they're just getting them met in a pretty cool and unusual way. What's so cool about enlightenment? You aren't even allowed to get angry anymore or you'll lose your enlightened status! No thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Apr 27, 2021 4:03:34 GMT -5
Ha yes, great bit of TV. Did you watch the whole series? www.imdb.com/title/tt8694364 There's a speech the Gran gives in the last episode about how we got from there to here and, for me, it felt that that speech was the first thing the writer put down and the rest of the show grew around it Interesting that the BBC would broadcast something like this, at this time. Well it's a couple of years old now - May 2019. Written and produced by Russell T Davies who was the show runner for Dr Who, so he's given the future a bit of thought. were they told by someone to write this down as some sort of blueprint By someone or something? " As though this object in hyperspace throws off reflections of itself, which ricochet into the past, illuminating
this mystic, inspiring that saint or visionary. And that out of these fragmentary glimpses of Eternity we can build a kind of a map of not only the past universe and the evolutionary ingression into novelty, but a kind of map of the future." Terence McKenna |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 28, 2021 4:37:29 GMT -5
Reflecting on something Steven said on the other thread about 'ordering intelligence' or 'God', and also reflected on a conversation I had with a bunch of atheists a couple of years ago, on a Ricky Gervais thread on facebook.
How, and why, do atheists form morals? If everything is a random mathematical probability, on what basis do they consider anything to be right or wrong? How do atheists conclude that murder, rape, paedophilia...are right or wrong? Why are those things not just...'mathematic probabilities'. There was a certain rich irony in the conversation I had back then.....in the end, the only thing the atheists could say was....''well, it's just my belief''!
Personally, I have a basis for 'right and wrong'...I look at universal principles, or natural laws, and I look at the 'true nature' of God. There is a logical foundation or framework to my morality. A foundation. It's odd that an atheist...who often has a strong leaning towards the rational and logical.....would allow themselves to think that something is 'right or wrong'....just 'because' i.e without a basis.
I guess I should probably acknowledge that what I am calling universal principles, natural laws, even the 'true nature' of God...can be said to be 'apparent' or 'dream', but there's a slight paradox, in that the 'dream/apparent' nature of these things is part of what forms my moral basis. To put that another way, if 'Oneness' is the case, then 'fundamental separation' would be (a relative) untruth...falsity....lie.....and I would say that a lot of what I might call 'immoral' in the world, is an expression of this falsity/lie/untruthfulness.
I consider transhumanism to be part of the relative falsity/lie....but I wonder if at least there's an honesty within it, to the degree that it's almost as if....what partly drives it.....is the atheistic sense of trying to conquer and defeat the random nature of the mathematic probabilities that they believe in. Trying to play at being the God they say they don't believe in.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 28, 2021 13:46:02 GMT -5
Reflecting on something Steven said on the other thread about 'ordering intelligence' or 'God', and also reflected on a conversation I had with a bunch of atheists a couple of years ago, on a Ricky Gervais thread on facebook.
How, and why, do atheists form morals? If everything is a random mathematical probability, on what basis do they consider anything to be right or wrong? How do atheists conclude that murder, rape, paedophilia...are right or wrong? Why are those things not just...'mathematic probabilities'. There was a certain rich irony in the conversation I had back then.....in the end, the only thing the atheists could say was....''well, it's just my belief''! Personally, I have a basis for 'right and wrong'...I look at universal principles, or natural laws, and I look at the 'true nature' of God. There is a logical foundation or framework to my morality. A foundation. It's odd that an atheist...who often has a strong leaning towards the rational and logical.....would allow themselves to think that something is 'right or wrong'....just 'because' i.e without a basis. I guess I should probably acknowledge that what I am calling universal principles, natural laws, even the 'true nature' of God...can be said to be 'apparent' or 'dream', but there's a slight paradox, in that the 'dream/apparent' nature of these things is part of what forms my moral basis. To put that another way, if 'Oneness' is the case, then 'fundamental separation' would be (a relative) untruth...falsity....lie.....and I would say that a lot of what I might call 'immoral' in the world, is an expression of this falsity/lie/untruthfulness. I consider transhumanism to be part of the relative falsity/lie....but I wonder if at least there's an honesty within it, to the degree that it's almost as if....what partly drives it.....is the atheistic sense of trying to conquer and defeat the random nature of the mathematic probabilities that they believe in. Trying to play at being the God they say they don't believe in. Like any other philosophical topic this question doesn't really have a short answer. From what I've read the atheists interested in the topic mostly present arguments as to why God is unnecessary for a system of ethics. Seems to me the humanists inherit much of their conditioned interest in morality from their cultural origins: cultures which were ostensibly dominated by monotheists. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 28, 2021 16:25:20 GMT -5
Reflecting on something Steven said on the other thread about 'ordering intelligence' or 'God', and also reflected on a conversation I had with a bunch of atheists a couple of years ago, on a Ricky Gervais thread on facebook.
How, and why, do atheists form morals? If everything is a random mathematical probability, on what basis do they consider anything to be right or wrong? How do atheists conclude that murder, rape, paedophilia...are right or wrong? Why are those things not just...'mathematic probabilities'. There was a certain rich irony in the conversation I had back then.....in the end, the only thing the atheists could say was....''well, it's just my belief''! Personally, I have a basis for 'right and wrong'...I look at universal principles, or natural laws, and I look at the 'true nature' of God. There is a logical foundation or framework to my morality. A foundation. It's odd that an atheist...who often has a strong leaning towards the rational and logical.....would allow themselves to think that something is 'right or wrong'....just 'because' i.e without a basis. I guess I should probably acknowledge that what I am calling universal principles, natural laws, even the 'true nature' of God...can be said to be 'apparent' or 'dream', but there's a slight paradox, in that the 'dream/apparent' nature of these things is part of what forms my moral basis. To put that another way, if 'Oneness' is the case, then 'fundamental separation' would be (a relative) untruth...falsity....lie.....and I would say that a lot of what I might call 'immoral' in the world, is an expression of this falsity/lie/untruthfulness. I consider transhumanism to be part of the relative falsity/lie....but I wonder if at least there's an honesty within it, to the degree that it's almost as if....what partly drives it.....is the atheistic sense of trying to conquer and defeat the random nature of the mathematic probabilities that they believe in. Trying to play at being the God they say they don't believe in. Like any other philosophical topic this question doesn't really have a short answer. From what I've read the atheists interested in the topic mostly present arguments as to why God is unnecessary for a system of ethics. Seems to me the humanists inherit much of their conditioned interest in morality from their cultural origins: cultures which were ostensibly dominated by monotheists. Yes. It seems to me that believing in 'right and wrong' (in a moral sense) requires an appeal to an authority, or some kind of 'expertise' beyond the individual. I don't think any individual...whether they are religious or atheist would be able and willing to say....this is right (or wrong) because I personally say it is so (though there's a certain irony to that, because in a sense, we are each making it up as we go along). It's hard to see what authority or expertise an atheist (or humanist) could appeal to...as you say, seems like the best they could do is look to cultural origins, ones which were dominated by the monotheists. I guess it puzzles me slightly. I tend to stereotype a self-declared atheist as someone that is very rational, logical, critical. And yet I don't think they can rationally explain how and why their morals are formed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 28, 2021 16:55:53 GMT -5
Like any other philosophical topic this question doesn't really have a short answer. From what I've read the atheists interested in the topic mostly present arguments as to why God is unnecessary for a system of ethics. Seems to me the humanists inherit much of their conditioned interest in morality from their cultural origins: cultures which were ostensibly dominated by monotheists. Yes. It seems to me that believing in 'right and wrong' (in a moral sense) requires an appeal to an authority, or some kind of 'expertise' beyond the individual. I don't think any individual...whether they are religious or atheist would be able and willing to say....this is right (or wrong) because I personally say it is so (though there's a certain irony to that, because in a sense, we are each making it up as we go along). It's hard to see what authority or expertise an atheist (or humanist) could appeal to...as you say, seems like the best they could do is look to cultural origins, ones which were dominated by the monotheists. I guess it puzzles me slightly. I tend to stereotype a self-declared atheist as someone that is very rational, logical, critical. And yet I don't think they can rationally explain how and why their morals are formed. Oh, I could put on a scarecrow suit for that side of the arg. It would go something like this: We just have to replace "God" - for the purposes of an appeal to authority - with "humanity". This is where you get the "Humanism" in secular humanism and transhumanism. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 28, 2021 17:12:14 GMT -5
Yes. It seems to me that believing in 'right and wrong' (in a moral sense) requires an appeal to an authority, or some kind of 'expertise' beyond the individual. I don't think any individual...whether they are religious or atheist would be able and willing to say....this is right (or wrong) because I personally say it is so (though there's a certain irony to that, because in a sense, we are each making it up as we go along). It's hard to see what authority or expertise an atheist (or humanist) could appeal to...as you say, seems like the best they could do is look to cultural origins, ones which were dominated by the monotheists. I guess it puzzles me slightly. I tend to stereotype a self-declared atheist as someone that is very rational, logical, critical. And yet I don't think they can rationally explain how and why their morals are formed. Who or what is this God that you speak of? There was no God in that message...you mean the previous one? Or you mean the religious Gods? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 28, 2021 17:17:47 GMT -5
Yes. It seems to me that believing in 'right and wrong' (in a moral sense) requires an appeal to an authority, or some kind of 'expertise' beyond the individual. I don't think any individual...whether they are religious or atheist would be able and willing to say....this is right (or wrong) because I personally say it is so (though there's a certain irony to that, because in a sense, we are each making it up as we go along). It's hard to see what authority or expertise an atheist (or humanist) could appeal to...as you say, seems like the best they could do is look to cultural origins, ones which were dominated by the monotheists. I guess it puzzles me slightly. I tend to stereotype a self-declared atheist as someone that is very rational, logical, critical. And yet I don't think they can rationally explain how and why their morals are formed. Oh, I could put on a scarecrow suit for that side of the arg. It would go something like this: We just have to replace "God" - for the purposes of an appeal to authority - with "humanity". This is where you get the "Humanism" in secular humanism and transhumanism. Sure, but I don't understand their reasoning for deciding that human suffering is bad...and why a 'dark, dingy place' is bad...maybe just because they don't like the experience of certain feelings and sensations? From a rational/logical point of view....a point of view that believes in a 'random' world, it strikes me as illogical that they would conclude that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 28, 2021 17:23:14 GMT -5
Oh, I could put on a scarecrow suit for that side of the arg. It would go something like this: We just have to replace "God" - for the purposes of an appeal to authority - with "humanity". This is where you get the "Humanism" in secular humanism and transhumanism. Sure, but I don't understand their reasoning for deciding that human suffering is bad...and why a 'dark, dingy place' is bad...maybe just because they don't like the experience of certain feelings and sensations? From a rational/logical point of view....a point of view that believes in a 'random' world, it strikes me as illogical that they would conclude that. "Pain bad". Pretty simple. Humanists can look at other humans, see their suffering, imagine what it would be like to suffer the same, and conclude it's a bad thing. In this sense, the humanists are right: you don't need God to have empathy. The point about randomness goes a bit deeper. The underlying belief system admits randomness as the way things are, a conclusion had by observation. But that's just one facet of reality. There's also a natural order to things - natural laws. These are entirely physical, determined by the "nature of the Universe", and subject to continual discovery by the ongoing process of science. |
|
