Stupid 'Mysterious Ways'

Great Debates
81

Lib: I’m glad to see that you agree now (although it took Gaudere’s much nicer rewording of what I said to get that to happen :wink: ). However, I still have some comments about your response:

It’s a thread about both, I think, since the OP was complaining about the ridiculous use of “mysterious ways” by believers.

Yes, Lib, it does. Life means life no matter what. Words don’t change just because you want them to. As Gaudere said (and you later agreed with), a simple change could have clarified your meaning. But when it comes down to a choice between the Lib-definition and the dictionary, I’m gonna side with the dictionary every time.

I’m not. I’m asking you to stop redefining words to suit your own meaning!

If it was clear, I wouldn’t have said anything. The fact was that it wasn’t clear because, again, you insisted on redefining words based on your own beliefs.

But first you have to be clear that we are, indeed, speaking of spiritual things. When you post a one-liner with only a few words in it, and just assume that everybody knows what’s going on inside your head, this type of thing is going to happen. It’s not a crime to clarify, and that’s all I’m asking.

Not to you, but my crystal ball is in the shop.

But that isn’t what you said, is it? No. All you said was, “There is no life in the atoms.” Then when I replied, you responded with another cryptic remark: “That’s not life. That’s electrochemistry. Life doesn’t die.” And you’re really going to tell me that I should have read your mind to know exactly what you meant by that? You never mentioned the “Spirit” there, Lib, so don’t bring it up now as if you did. The fact is that I was using standard definitions, and all I ask is that you do the same to prevent misunderstanding. I never said it was “awful,” but it sure can get annoying after a while.

82

Dumb Ox (and Xeno reprise)

Or (4), the case I am making, “suffering” in the context of the physical universe is amoral, i.e., it is not a bad thing morally.

If Life — True Life, Real Life, Life That Matters — is in the Spirit (and I believe it is), then that Life is eternal. Though some catastrophe, say, a tornado, comes and sweeps your body away into a whirlwind of debris and deposits your body onto the ground a half-mile away, leaving your body in great pain, your Spirit — your Real Life — is uninjured by the amoral event unless you — the Real You — chooses to react immorally.

If you get up from the fall and decide you now have an opportunity to pillage your neighbors’ homes because you want what they own, you have interpreted the amoral event immorally. But if you get up from the fall and decide you now have an opportunity to go assist your neighbors, you have interpreted the amoral event morally.

Events (including catastrophes) that occur in the physical universe are amoral. You arbitrarily assign them as evil (though they are neither evil nor good) and then proceed to pin your assignment on God. You end up with paradoxes because you mix metaphors together from the natural and supernatural.

God is Spirit. Spirit is all that is real.

83

David B

[…sigh…]

Merriam-Webster gives twenty different definitions for the word “life”, David, not including the lettered sub-breaks.

Do you truly think that when Jesus spoke of eternal life, He was referring to cellular replication? In a thread about God and His “mysterious ways”, it is appropriate to resolve the alleged paradoxes by pointing out that the only life that matters is spiritual life (MW’s definition number 4) in the context of a supernatural God, and not physical life.

Yes, Gaudere was right that I could have been more clear, but people here are real smart and don’t need to be led by the nose. Gaudere meant (or I thought she meant) that new people, unaware of the context of the thread, because they might have jumped to the end of the discussion, might need the extra clarification.

You have this (apparently uncontrollable) habit of chastising me for what you see as using general terms in specialized contexts, despite that you (and every friggin’ body) take license to do that yourself (and rightly so!). Did you not say that natural selection is not survival of the fittest? Yet if you enter “survival of the fittest” in MW, you will get this:

I used that once to illustrate how dictionaries do not necessarily conform with usage at all times. Spiritus then responded with a sarcastic quip implying that the dictionary is not an appropriate authority on evolution.

Well, duh. Every discipline (and especially philosophy) uses terms in very special ways, because the only alternative is to invent new terms. But it helps when you can get as close as possible to your meaning with a term that already exists.

Context matters, David. In the context of a metaphysical discussion about God, it is just as important to point out that physical life (and its accompanying suffering) has nothing to do with spiritual life (and its own accompanying suffering), as it is to point out in the context of a discussion about evolution that natural selection has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

Were I to follow your lead, I would never miss the opportunity to quote MW whenever you make assertions, picking some arbitrary definition despite whatever context you’re dealing with, and getting all tangental, but then I would be silly, too.

For example, when you mentioned the heart in the context of a thread on cardiology, I might blurt out, “Now, David, the heart is the essential or most vital part of something, and it could be argued that the brain serves that function.” Or, in the context of a thread on evolution, I might cry, “Now, David, life is one providing interest and vigor (as in life of the party). Stop redefining the word to mean the period from birth to death.”

But that would be silly.

84

Some Christians believe suffering is good and noble. I listen to WEWN a Catholic radio station on short wave. Some of the comments from the various hosts are as follows: I hope one day to have the opportunity to be martyred for Christ. Suffering is necessary to bring us closed to Jesus. Purgatory hurts so good (I am not kidding) through the torturous pain we are cleansed and made perfect in the eyes of God. Love is Calvary love is the cross. It is a shame that so many people believe suffering and pain are to be avoided, in the imitation of Christ you must pick up your cross and carry it.

I don’t know about you but I find these comments disgusting.

85

Icerigger

Physical suffering can be interpreted as good, and it can be interpreted as evil. But physical suffering is, outside any context, neither good nor evil.

If you think suffering is a priori disgusting, then my advice to you is never attempt to start a business.

86

David

One more example I thought of: I accepted your (and Gaudere’s) usage of the term “atheist”, despite that the dictionary defines it differently. I accepted your definition because it helped me understand better what you meant. Won’t you relax your dogamtism and extend to me the same courtesy you expect for yourself?

If you have a problem with my interpretation of spiritual metaphysics, then by all means, please engage me in debate over them. But this fixation on words having rigid unbending definitions in every single context they are used is equivalent to sniping at someone over grammar or spelling in the sense that it isn’t dealing with the matter at hand, but with an irrelevant tangent. And while spelling or grammar is contextually rigid, definitions and connotations are not. They are dependent completely on context.

87

Lib, you still seem to be missing the key point here.

That point is that while you may have known the context in which you were using the word “life,” nobody else had any real way of knowing – we don’t do mind reading. You didn’t mention “spirit,” as I’ve already pointed out. You didn’t use it in a way that would show what you were really talking about. Instead, you made a cryptic statement and followed it with another one. In either case, you had the opportunity to clarify, and didn’t. Now you’re trying to blame me for pointing this out. Sorry, but I don’t play that game.

This is a discussion board. It’s hard to discuss things when we don’t all use the same basic terms to mean the same thing. Now, if you want to make things difficult, then you’re on the right track. But if you would rather concentrate on discussing the issues at hand, doesn’t it make more sense to try to be as clear as possible?

88

Your last post came in while I was merrily typing away on mine, so allow me to add to my above note.

I don’t disagree that definitions are somewhat dependent on context – if the context is obvious. But in the cases I’ve been talking about, my whole point is that the context has not been obvious. Just stating, “There is no life in the atoms.” doesn’t give any indication that you are using “life” in a way different than it is most commonly used. Following it up by saying, “That’s not life. That’s electrochemistry. Life doesn’t die.” still gives no hint of what you’re really talking about. If you knew that I was talking about life in the usual manner (which you apparently did, as you equated what I said to electrochemistry), why not simply clarify instead of adding only cryptic comments that explain nothing?

89

Dangit! I meant to add this in and forgot before I hit “Submit.” Ah well, you’ll have to put up with three in a row from me.

Instead of making a cryptic comment that appears to argue with what I said (“That’s not life. That’s electrochemistry. Life doesn’t die.”), you could have easily responded:

“Yes, David, I know that ‘life’ can be defined that way, but I was talking about Spiritual Life.”

That would have clarified it, made sure everybody understood, and ended it right there.

90

David

I’m not certain you can presume to speak for everybody. Gaudere, for one, seemed to understand what I meant. As I’ve pointed out now (repeatedly) this thread is about a supernatural metaphysic. Using the term life metaphysically ought to be normal. Clarification ought to be required when using the term as an attribute of nature, which is irrelevant with respect to a supernatural metaphysic.

The opening post already did that: “If there is a God, and He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, why did He let this happen?”

Are you using “cryptic” to mean “brief”?

I’m not blaming you for anything except what you are doing, saying things like “life means life” no matter what.

Well, it has now been clarified to a fare-thee-well. Let’s see if you’re right.

91

Libertarian:

Well, I actually agree with you about the morality aspect. In fact, take away all the eternal spirit and God references and I agree with you entirely! (Yes, I know this means only tangentially, but let’s get along with each other where we can, ok?)

Morality is the yardstick by which we measure the quality of human actions; natural occurrences cannot be evaluated in the same terms. Even if we assume an eternal controlling Entity for Nature, It’s purposes are unknowable to us, and are therefore irrelevant to our actions.

Speaking on a purely personal level, I don’t find either the addition of a hypothetical OmniBeing or the belief in eternal spiritual life necessary in order for me to follow a moral code. I strive to act as I would have others act (and to reason, question and consider things as I would have others reason, question and consider). The various inevitable ways in which I fail to act in such a manner are my “sins” and, to be true to that morality I seek, I must do what I can to improve myself and correct my wrongs. When Bad Things happen to me, they are not Judgements or Punishments; they are merely happenstances, to be dealt with as each situation and my moral code require.

92

Oh, yeah. There’s a lot of mist “on” flatland, so distant things aren’t as “bright”. A circle would look something like:
. . …oooooOOOOOooooo… . .
That’s what the sphere would look like, since it’s intersection would be a circle.

A line segment perpendicular to the viewer would look like:

    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A line segment not perpendicular would be brighter on the end nearest to the viewer, and so would look like this:
. . . …oooooOOOOOOO

If you were right in front of it, it would look like a point. The point is that since Mr. A Square has depth perception, he realizes that the “circle” caused by the sphere intersecting flatland is not a line segment, the same way we realize that a sphere is not pancake-like disk.

I agree with Lib that a flatland circle would appear to be a line segment in some ways, the same way a sphere in 3Dland appears to be a disk in some ways. But there are simple things that show that it cannot be a disk/line segment. That’s how the ancient greeks deduced that the moon must be a sphere, not a disk.

93

Lemur

A brilliant way to illustrate your point with these primitive tools! Thank you!

Xeno

Wow.

Other than what our experience tells us about God, we pretty much seem to see things the same way. I guess my own world-view is necessarily qualified by the existence of the Absolute Objectivity, which exists in a spiritual metaphysic; whereas yours is necessarily qualified by the existence of the Absolute Subjectivity, which exists in a metaphysic as yet unknown (and perhaps unknowable).

94

Nice explanation, Lemur. I was really having trouble with the idea of “depth perception” in a 2D world. With your brightness variation idea I’m a little happier, but now I’m wondering about light sources and shadows.

Even if the light source is perpedicular to A.'s plane, the only light waves that could be focused onto his retina would have to be those few which are scattered in a direction parallel with the plane. Thus, I think shadows would still be a great problem for A in his explorations.

And come to think of it, how does an infinitely thin two dimensional object even manage to reflect something as substantial as a photon off of it’s edge?

Poor square! Not only does he have these moral dilemma’s to deal with, he’s homeless and [mostly] in the dark!

95

Thanks for clarifying your position, Libertarian. I apologize for the delay in my response but I have been suffering, having gotten a piece of bad cheese. I’m not implying that the cheese was immoral, but suffice it to say that its physical development had far exceeded its spiritual development. Better now, though.

O.K That does get around the problem for God, but the logical extension is that my actions in the physical universe are also amoral.

This is the position of some Hindu sects, I believe. They would say that the physical universe is all illusion, so physical suffering is an illusion as well. Since suffering isn’t real, you don’t have to explain it. (Do Christian Scientists believe this, too?) But this runs into the same problem as above. If it’s all illusion, what does that mean for the ethics of human actions in the physical sphere? [Note: I’m using the word “sphere” metaphorically here. I in no way intend to get sucked into your discussion of dimensional geometry. Thank you.]

96

Dumb Ox

Only if you are also nothing but atoms, just like the rest of the universe, are your actions amoral.

However, if the Real You is Spirit (in God’s image), then you (the Real You) are capable of making moral (or immoral) decisions, which you (the corporeal you) act out in an amoral context.

In other words, morality doesn’t come from the atoms, but from the heart, where the Spirit dwells.

97

Of course, you still haven’t answered why the “real you” who makes all the moral decisions is affected by psychiatric drugs that affect the “physical you” or who the “real you” is if you need such psychiatric drugs…

98

Psychiatric drugs do not affect moral decisions, but only motor decisions. As I explained before, it was the decision to take a psychiatric drug at all that might have been a moral decision. Context is everything.

99

Baloney.

There are people who are downright dangerous to others when not on psych. drugs, but okay when they are. I’d say that hurting another human being is a “moral decision.”

100

Context is everything.

As I explained before (with an illustration of a fortune-teller’s crazy daughter), when a brain is damaged, the motor action of hurting someone is amoral. She simply could not help herself, despite her beautiful heart.

You define morality in terms of contextless actions. I do not. Mine is not baloney simply because it is not yours.