Interesting, this is exactly how I felt a week ago. I am the product of western culture, after all. Anyway, if no arguments are provided I can explain the reasoning since I’m pretty familiar with it. I also know exactly where the error in reasoning was.
The error is this: the reasoning assumes that humans desires are designed in a way that makes sense with respect to the way reality is. In other words, that we’re not inherently deluded or mislead by our basic nature in some (subjectively) unacceptable way. However, the unexamined premise behind this is that we were designed with some care. With the other point of view—that we are designed by mechanisms with no in-borne mechanism concerned for our well-being—it is amazing that experience isn’t actually more insufferable than it is. Well, I realize that perhaps it is already as insufferable as it can be without more negatively affecting fitness.
But imagine, we could have accidentally evolved a neurological module that experiences excruciating pain constantly, but is unable to engage with behavior in a way to effect selection, and is unable to tell us about itself. Or it is likely, given the size of mind-space, that there are other minds experiencing intense suffering without the ability to seek reprieve in non-existence. How theism works explains that while theists are making stuff up, they can make up everything to be as good as they wish. On the other hand, without a God to keep things in check, there is no limit on how horrible reality can be.
The error is this: the reasoning assumes that humans desires are designed in a way that makes sense with respect to the way reality is. In other words, that we’re not inherently deluded or mislead by our basic nature in some (subjectively) unacceptable way.
Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Zen, in which it’s considered a premise that we are inherently deluded and misled by our basic nature… and in large part due to our need to label things. As in How An Algorithm Feels From Inside, Zen attempts to point out that our basic nature is delusion: we feel as though questions like “Does the tree make a sound?” and “What is the nature of objective morality?” actually have some sort of sensible meaning.
(Of course, I have to say that Eliezer’s writing on the subject did a lot more for allowing me to really grasp that idea than my Zen studies ever did. OTOH, Zen provides more opportunities to feel as though the world is an undifferentiated whole, its own self with no labels needed.)
Thanks for the edit to the original comment; I was unsure
whether you were arguing for a view or just describing it
(though I assumed the latter based on your other comments).
Without God there’s no end game, just fleeting existence.
Like the statement in the original comment (and like most
arguments for religion), this one is in great need of
unpacking. People invoke things like “ultimate purpose”
without saying what they mean. But I think a lot of people
who agreed with the above would say that life is worthless
if it simply ends when the body dies. To which I say:
If a life that begins and eventually ends has no “meaning”
or “purpose” (whatever those words mean), then an infinitely
long one doesn’t either. Zero times infinity is still
zero.
(Of course I know what the everyday meanings of “meaning”
and “purpose” are, but those obviously aren’t the meanings
religionists use them with.)
I am a math amateur; I understand limit notation and “f(x)”
notation, but I failed to follow the reasoning at the
MathWorld link. Does nerzhin or anyone else know someplace
that spells it out more? (Right now I’m studying the
Wikipedia “Limit of a function”
page.)
Edit: this comment happens to reply to an out-of-context sentence that is not endorsed by Zachary_Kurtz. Thanks to grouchymusicologist for noticing my mistake.
Without God there’s no end game, just fleeting existence.
Was any argument given for this claim?
Interesting, this is exactly how I felt a week ago. I am the product of western culture, after all. Anyway, if no arguments are provided I can explain the reasoning since I’m pretty familiar with it. I also know exactly where the error in reasoning was.
The error is this: the reasoning assumes that humans desires are designed in a way that makes sense with respect to the way reality is. In other words, that we’re not inherently deluded or mislead by our basic nature in some (subjectively) unacceptable way. However, the unexamined premise behind this is that we were designed with some care. With the other point of view—that we are designed by mechanisms with no in-borne mechanism concerned for our well-being—it is amazing that experience isn’t actually more insufferable than it is. Well, I realize that perhaps it is already as insufferable as it can be without more negatively affecting fitness.
But imagine, we could have accidentally evolved a neurological module that experiences excruciating pain constantly, but is unable to engage with behavior in a way to effect selection, and is unable to tell us about itself. Or it is likely, given the size of mind-space, that there are other minds experiencing intense suffering without the ability to seek reprieve in non-existence. How theism works explains that while theists are making stuff up, they can make up everything to be as good as they wish. On the other hand, without a God to keep things in check, there is no limit on how horrible reality can be.
Interestingly, this is the exact opposite of Zen, in which it’s considered a premise that we are inherently deluded and misled by our basic nature… and in large part due to our need to label things. As in How An Algorithm Feels From Inside, Zen attempts to point out that our basic nature is delusion: we feel as though questions like “Does the tree make a sound?” and “What is the nature of objective morality?” actually have some sort of sensible meaning.
(Of course, I have to say that Eliezer’s writing on the subject did a lot more for allowing me to really grasp that idea than my Zen studies ever did. OTOH, Zen provides more opportunities to feel as though the world is an undifferentiated whole, its own self with no labels needed.)
Eliezer Yudkowsky made quite a good essay on this theme—Beyond the Reach of God.
Without God there’s no end game, just fleeting existence.
I am reminded of The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
Edit: Original link.
Thanks for the edit to the original comment; I was unsure whether you were arguing for a view or just describing it (though I assumed the latter based on your other comments).
Like the statement in the original comment (and like most arguments for religion), this one is in great need of unpacking. People invoke things like “ultimate purpose” without saying what they mean. But I think a lot of people who agreed with the above would say that life is worthless if it simply ends when the body dies. To which I say:
If a life that begins and eventually ends has no “meaning” or “purpose” (whatever those words mean), then an infinitely long one doesn’t either. Zero times infinity is still zero.
(Of course I know what the everyday meanings of “meaning” and “purpose” are, but those obviously aren’t the meanings religionists use them with.)
Edit: nerzhin points out that Zero times infinity is not well defined. (Cold comfort, I think, to the admittedly imaginary theist making the “finite life is worthless” argument.)
I am a math amateur; I understand limit notation and “f(x)” notation, but I failed to follow the reasoning at the MathWorld link. Does nerzhin or anyone else know someplace that spells it out more? (Right now I’m studying the Wikipedia “Limit of a function” page.)
Strictly speaking, no.
Edit: this comment happens to reply to an out-of-context sentence that is not endorsed by Zachary_Kurtz. Thanks to grouchymusicologist for noticing my mistake.
You happen to be wrong on this one. Please read the sequences, in particular the Metaethics sequence and Joy in the Merely Real.
Pretty sure ZK is not endorsing this view but instead responding to the query “Was any argument given for this claim?”
Upvoted ZK’s comment for this reason.
Thanks, my mistake.
no problem.. it happens