The Case for Non-Existence

Quote :

David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence.

If God didn't exist we would have to invent Him.
This is a perfect example of why we need the transcendent. The alternative is ultimate collective insanity.

D.Harry wrote:

Quote :

David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence.

If God didn't exist we would have to invent Him.
This is a perfect example of why we need the transcendent. The alternative is ultimate collective insanity.

Because God didn't exist, we did invent him. I'll give you that he has in the past performed an important role in providing social cohesion. I think we should say, thanks a lot, goodbye, and go with science from here on in.

Where cactus and I would differ, is aside from issues of belief, in our understanding of science. I whole heartedly agree that science is one of the most important aspects of the universe, the universe is clearly governed by science! I think you will find that the vast majority of Christians in the world completely agree with that sentiment. There are whole movements of Christians in science and indeed many of our greatest scientists have also been Christians. Ernest Walton for instance, our only Irish Nobel Prize winning physicist was a committed Christian as was Prof Cocker of Trinity Chemistry who was another internationally renowned scientist.

When I sit in Church in my congregation on a Sunday morning in the seat behind me generally sits a fellow and professor of immunobiology at Trinity College Dublin. Just across the aisle generally sits a post doctoral fellow of Neuroscience attached to the Conway Institute at UCD. When I attend my girlfriend's Church I regulardly converse with a Professor of Mathematics at UCD. When I used to sit down with my grandfather and chat prior to his death I sat not only with a lay preacher of the Church but also with a European expert in his field of science who headed up his particular speciality for the whole of Europe in the Council of Europe.

The list of top notch scientists who are committed Christians is endless both throughout history and today. Whilst this is of course, no indication of the absolute truth of a higher order, it is indicative of the truth that all these people hold that whilst Christians do not have a monopoly on truth, nor does any other form of study have a monopoly on rationality. Any such person who claims they do is at best deluded and at worst a perpetual liar.

The boundary between conviction and fanaticism is something which should be of a concern to all of society whether it is in regard to the religious or the non religious, or indeed anything else. Fanaticism takes root by dividing the world into black and white "Christians think this, atheists think that" it is a manner of framing debate which seeks to eschew complexity and mistakes assertion for argument.

Most Christians have absolutely no fear of science, they fully support it as the most satisfying way of discovering the glory of creation - what better way could there be than discovering creation under a microscope?

1. reproduction is fun.
2. having kids looks like a ball. you become king and god to lots of little people!!!
3. if this is all "existance" has to offer; this life of toil, of tears, of pain with occasional bouts of happiness and fulfillment, then feck it, i'll take it anyway. it beats the alternative (not existing) or worse, being a lump of granite.

You become king until they hit about 12 zakalwe, then you become an investment banker and liable to receive just about as good a return as Lehman Brothers .

johnfás wrote:

You become king until they hit about 12 zakalwe, then you become an investment banker and liable to receive just about as good a return as Lehman Brothers .

Or, no matter how bad they are, you package them up and sell them into "bonded" labour?
There's a lot of sub-prime kids hanging around our streets, you know, which the government
may eventually have to bail out of their parents grasp and take them into care.

I say it time and time again that the failure of the Government and Local Authorities to adequately provide for our children costs us far more in the long run than simply giving them the best when they are younger.

The solution, when it rarely exists, seems to be to give poorer areas a great playground or a snooker table. This is a load of crap. Young people need to have instilled into them a sense of self worth and confidence in their own ability both to improve their own situation and that of those around them, regardless of financial success.

When I visit churches in poor areas both in Dublin and in Belfast I never cease to be amazed by the marvellous work which they, and indeed other groups, are doing to provide for these young people on a voluntary basis where the Government is failing. These kids are living in areas without emphasis on education and infested with drug and alcohol abuse yet the churches and their leaders have managed to instill such a degree of self worth in these young people that they say no I am better than this and I will have better than this.

This is what we need, whether it comes from the churches or not. We need alot more of it.

johnfás wrote:

Where cactus and I would differ, is aside from issues of belief, in our understanding of science. I whole heartedly agree that science is one of the most important aspects of the universe, the universe is clearly governed by science! I think you will find that the vast majority of Christians in the world completely agree with that sentiment. There are whole movements of Christians in science and indeed many of our greatest scientists have also been Christians. Ernest Walton for instance, our only Irish Nobel Prize winning physicist was a committed Christian as was Prof Cocker of Trinity Chemistry who was another internationally renowned scientist.

When I sit in Church in my congregation on a Sunday morning in the seat behind me generally sits a fellow and professor of immunobiology at Trinity College Dublin. Just across the aisle generally sits a post doctoral fellow of Neuroscience attached to the Conway Institute at UCD. When I attend my girlfriend's Church I regulardly converse with a Professor of Mathematics at UCD. When I used to sit down with my grandfather and chat prior to his death I sat not only with a lay preacher of the Church but also with a European expert in his field of science who headed up his particular speciality for the whole of Europe in the Council of Europe.

The list of top notch scientists who are committed Christians is endless both throughout history and today. Whilst this is of course, no indication of the absolute truth of a higher order, it is indicative of the truth that all these people hold that whilst Christians do not have a monopoly on truth, nor does any other form of study have a monopoly on rationality. Any such person who claims they do is at best deluded and at worst a perpetual liar.

The boundary between conviction and fanaticism is something which should be of a concern to all of society whether it is in regard to the religious or the non religious, or indeed anything else. Fanaticism takes root by dividing the world into black and white "Christians think this, atheists think that" it is a manner of framing debate which seeks to eschew complexity and mistakes assertion for argument.

Most Christians have absolutely no fear of science, they fully support it as the most satisfying way of discovering the glory of creation - what better way could their be than discovering creation under a microscope?

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this johnfás. As a fellow practising Christian I see no conflict between Religion and Science as sources of meaning in the world. They complement, enhance and enrich one another. Have you read Keith Ward's Why There Almost Certainly Is A God? It's a fantastic and lucid rebuttal of the atheistic view expounded by Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett.