Question for religious parents

"jules" wrote in message
news:3JMNf.88487$B94.4994@pd7tw3no...
Nor does it bother me that I will not continue to exist after death, at
least not any more than it bothers me that I didn't exist before I was
born.

You aren't the sort who wakes up in the middle of the night in a crushing,
agonizing panic that you might lose someone you love, are you?

Well, I'm not exactly sure I wake up in the middle of the night in agonizing
panic, but I can tell you that I was the kind of kid who always lay awake
worrying until my parents came home if they'd gone out for the evening. I
was terrified they'd die and not come home. And I have had some fairly
abominable nightmares involving the loss of one or more of my children. It's
not that I don't dread the possibility.

OTOH, I lost my father 7.5 years ago--quite suddenly and unexpectedly--and
I've realized that life goes on and, more, the HE goes on in the lives and
hearts of the people HIS life touched, including me. I have occasion to miss
him almost every day, but I also have wonderful memories of the time we had
together, and that sustains me. And he's really always with me in the back
of my mind--I often test ideas by asking myself what my dad would have
thought or said--so in an odd sort of way, it's as if he's not really gone
at all.

It's not so much that _I_ might not continue after death, but that those I
love might not.

If I believed with a certainty that we will go on after death, and I lost
a loved one, I would be terribly sad. I would miss them. But I would go
on, and I would be comforted by the fact that they are waiting for me and
that we will see each other again. Our separation is temporary in the
grand scheme of things.

I can understand that.

On the other hand, if I believed with a certainty that when we die, that's
it, *poof* - that "soul" no longer exists anywhere, and I lost a loved
one...

It would crush me like a bug. I'd probably wouldn't literally kill me,
but I'd be empty inside.

I can only say that it is possible to dread losing the people you love, not
believe in an afterlife in the conventional sense, and still not be crushed
by the loss when it happens. Maybe it isn't possible for you to do so, and
of course, I'm not attempting to dissuade you from believing what you
believe, at least as long as it gives you comfort. (If people's beliefs are
NOT comforting to them, well, then one might have more of a justification
for trying to change their minds...)

As it is, I have a sense of something greater and more eternal than our
existence being a fluke of the cosmos. But it can't be pinned down to a
certainty. I have seen some things that indicate to me that our souls are
not as temporary as our lives and I cling to that.

although as I have gotten older, I have become a lot less strident in my
desire to convert others to my POV g.

I think you are mostly joking here, but I'd like to point out that if you
were to try to convert me you would be doing me a disservice (even if you
ultimately happened to be right).

Of course. But I have also realized that whether I am "right" or not doesn't
really matter in the grand scheme of things. Since I have no great stake in
being "right" any more (at least when it comes to the "Big Questions"), I
have no great stake in whether OTHER people believe what I do or something
entirely different.

I may not have faith, but I have hope, and to rob me of that would make me
less happy in the short life I have.

And that is something I would be loath to do.
--
Be well, Barbara

dragonlady wrote:

But when it comes to things like whether God exists (and what God is)
and what happens after we die and why we are here -- while I will gladly
share my beliefs (and listen to yours), I try to hold my beliefs with
humility, aware that I cannot see the whole elephant, the whole
mountain, the full heart of the universe, all of creation, all of Truth
and Meaning -- the part you see is different from the part I see, each
of us has some of the Truth, and when we put it together and listen
deeply to each other, without trying to insist that OUR Truth is the
only Truth, we can all get just a little closer. Even if our Truths
appear totally contradictory, that just means there is something more --
something neither of us truely understands. Continuing to explore what
we each see/believe can only help each of us come a little closer.

There's nothing incompatible here with anything I've been saying. I
would certainly agree that beliefs don't have to be making a claim
about *all* of reality, or have to be the final say on the matter.

I would say that if we say we believe something to be true, that we
think we're describing at least a little bit of reality correctly.
That we think it's true. That we think people who don't agree with it
are wrong.

I do not see how that can be incompatible with what you seem to be
saying. Would you please explain?

--
C, maam to three year old nursling

wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
I'm saying that beliefs have to say that a proposition is either true,
or false, and that if I think a proposition is true, that automatically
means that I think that people who think that proposition is false are
wrong.

I think this is a proposition on which we'll just have to agree to
disagree.
Maybe the problem is that you only apply the word "belief" to facts or
ideas
which you think apply universally, while I apply it both to things I
think
are universally true and to things I hold to be true for me that I
suspect
might not be true for others.

Considering that you just replied to a post in which I said, "I'm not
saying that
all beliefs have to be held by everybody,"

I didn't think you were saying this...

and "I'm not saying that all
beliefs have to apply to truths that are about everyone,"

....but it did seem to me that you are saying this! I'm not sure how else to
interpret the statement (paraphrased), "If I think a proposition is true, I
automatically think people who think it's false are wrong." In other words,
you seem to be saying that for you to consider something a "belief", it has
to be something for which there are only two possible positions--true in all
cases or false in all cases. Now, I suppose that means you can say "I
believe brussel sprouts taste bad to me" and have it be true without having
it apply to all people. What I'm trying to say is that most of my beliefs
with regard to the Big Questions are more along the lines of "I believe P
for me," which allows me to open to the possibility that people who believe
Not P can be equally right when it comes to the truth for themselves.

So, for example, I don't believe in an afterlife for myself and doubt that
anyone else is going to have one either, but I also don't look at people who
say there's an afterlife and think "They're just plain wrong." I just think,
"It seems unlikely to me, but it's just as valid an opinion on the subject
as mine!" We're both working from the same evidence, after all, and have
exactly the same ability to prove our points. And I can conceive of multiple
ways in which both positions regarding the afterlife could actually be true,
some of which I've mentioned in this thread.

Maybe the real issue I'm struggling to explain here is that when it comes to
most of my beliefs, I doubt that there are simple yes/no, true/false
answers. So it is impossible for me to hold the position "P is true" (where
P represents some "big picture" question about the nature and meaning of
life) without simultaneously entertaining the possibility that not only is P
true, but Not P is true as well as P=X and P-X and any number of other
variations on P.
--
Be well, Barbara

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I suspect she means something like a situation
where you see things that appear to be contradictory
even though you believe them to be true. Often what
happens in those situations is that further information
resolves the apparent contradiction. Now, in a formal
logical sense, that's not the same as believing P and
not P at the same time; however, in practical, messy,
real-life terms is looks and feels like holding two
contradictory positions at the same time.

In a formal logic sense, it sounds like saying I believe P, and putting
on the qualifier that if you get reasons to believe ~P, you'll change
your mind. Which is just fine -- all I have been saying is that it
means you think that P. Therefore you think ~P is wrong.

It doesn't mean you think that P forever.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

In article Ji%Nf.6$5F1.4@fed1read08, Circe says...

"jules" wrote in message
news:3JMNf.88487$B94.4994@pd7tw3no...
Nor does it bother me that I will not continue to exist after death, at
least not any more than it bothers me that I didn't exist before I was
born.

You aren't the sort who wakes up in the middle of the night in a crushing,
agonizing panic that you might lose someone you love, are you?

Well, I'm not exactly sure I wake up in the middle of the night in agonizing
panic, but I can tell you that I was the kind of kid who always lay awake
worrying until my parents came home if they'd gone out for the evening. I
was terrified they'd die and not come home. And I have had some fairly
abominable nightmares involving the loss of one or more of my children. It's
not that I don't dread the possibility.

OTOH, I lost my father 7.5 years ago--quite suddenly and unexpectedly--and
I've realized that life goes on and, more, the HE goes on in the lives and
hearts of the people HIS life touched, including me. I have occasion to miss
him almost every day, but I also have wonderful memories of the time we had
together, and that sustains me. And he's really always with me in the back
of my mind--I often test ideas by asking myself what my dad would have
thought or said--so in an odd sort of way, it's as if he's not really gone
at all.

It's not so much that _I_ might not continue after death, but that those I
love might not.

If I believed with a certainty that we will go on after death, and I lost
a loved one, I would be terribly sad. I would miss them. But I would go
on, and I would be comforted by the fact that they are waiting for me and
that we will see each other again. Our separation is temporary in the
grand scheme of things.

I can understand that.

On the other hand, if I believed with a certainty that when we die, that's
it, *poof* - that "soul" no longer exists anywhere, and I lost a loved
one...

It would crush me like a bug. I'd probably wouldn't literally kill me,
but I'd be empty inside.

I can only say that it is possible to dread losing the people you love, not
believe in an afterlife in the conventional sense, and still not be crushed
by the loss when it happens. Maybe it isn't possible for you to do so, and
of course, I'm not attempting to dissuade you from believing what you
believe, at least as long as it gives you comfort. (If people's beliefs are
NOT comforting to them, well, then one might have more of a justification
for trying to change their minds...)

That whole idea never made sense to me, either (just like that the Rules of the
Cosmic will be revealed when one receives a Comic Clearance upon death doen't
make sense).

Relationships are complex and changeable. I always wondered how, when, say, a
man who was lovingly married to two women in succession, having been widowed at
a young age, is to handle these two women waiting for him in heaven Do they
get along? Do they phase? How about their other husbands and maybe even secret
lovers? Siblings who may or may not get along? How about that herd of cats and
packs of dogs awaiting us on the other side of the Rainbow Bridge? Which ones
are alpha dogs? How many scrapes did they get into to decide that? Or are they
all laying down together like the proverbial lions and lambs??

A blending into cosmic consiousness always made more sense to me. So, do loved
ones reconsistitue one at a time to greet one?

See, I think a LOT of religion comes from how painfully difficult it is for
sentient beings in organic bodies to imagine their own oblivion and that of
their loved ones. So all kinds of afterlives are postulated to spare that pain.
But sparing pain isn't truth.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Relationships are complex and changeable. I always wondered how, when,
say, a
man who was lovingly married to two women in succession, having been
widowed at
a young age, is to handle these two women waiting for him in heaven
Do they
get along? Do they phase? How about their other husbands and maybe even
secret
lovers? Siblings who may or may not get along? How about that herd of
cats and
packs of dogs awaiting us on the other side of the Rainbow Bridge? Which
ones
are alpha dogs? How many scrapes did they get into to decide that? Or
are they
all laying down together like the proverbial lions and lambs??

We've been told that heaven is a place that is so wonderful
that we will be beyond earthly concerns, which would
include things like jealousy and petty grievances.

A blending into cosmic consiousness always made more sense to me. So, do
loved
ones reconsistitue one at a time to greet one?

Well, since this is your view of the afterlife, you get to
decide that however it makes sense to you.

See, I think a LOT of religion comes from how painfully difficult it is
for
sentient beings in organic bodies to imagine their own oblivion and that
of
their loved ones. So all kinds of afterlives are postulated to spare that
pain.
But sparing pain isn't truth.

No, but it isn't untruth either. The whole point is that we
don't know, so we choose to believe whatever makes
sense to us, and/or whatever brings us comfort.

Bizby

wrote in message
oups.com...
bizby40 wrote:

I *believe* that you obfuscate your meaning by making your
words as convoluted and circular as you can, and then
follow up with a "really?" or a "*boggle*" when someone
does not understand, thus attempting to put yourself on the
high ground and leave the poor befuddled simple-minded
fool on the ground.

And I believe that I use words as clearly as possible. Therefore we
disagree, and you think I am wrong, and I think you are wrong.

Which is all I've ever said through this entire thread.

Wow, you've sure used a lot of words to say only that.

From dictionary.com:
be·lieve
[snip]
3.. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
4.. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

All of those definitions consist of *asserting* that a proposition is
either *true*, or *false*.

I don't think the two I didn't snip necessarily say that.

I don't really understand why you are having such
a hugely long conversation about semantics. I
suppose it would be more technically correct for
me to say, "I believe that no one can know for
sure what happens after death." (something I
believe to be *true*) and then "But the theory I
find most comforting or appealing is..." (stating
an opinion), but it is common for people to use
the term "believe" without having a 100% certainty
behind their views. And when someone tells you
that they can hold their beliefs without thinking
others are wrong, you really ought to believe them,
because you really can't tell someone how to
feel, and arguments over semantics are just
annoying.

--
C, mama to three year old nursling

wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


I suspect she means something like a situation
where you see things that appear to be contradictory
even though you believe them to be true. Often what
happens in those situations is that further information
resolves the apparent contradiction. Now, in a formal
logical sense, that's not the same as believing P and
not P at the same time; however, in practical, messy,
real-life terms is looks and feels like holding two
contradictory positions at the same time.

In a formal logic sense, it sounds like saying I believe P, and putting
on the qualifier that if you get reasons to believe ~P, you'll change
your mind. Which is just fine -- all I have been saying is that it
means you think that P. Therefore you think ~P is wrong.

It doesn't mean you think that P forever.

Actually, I don't think that's quite accurate.
In formal logic, there's only TRUE and FALSE and no
provision for anything in between. I think in the messy
real world, we often operate somewhere in between,
especially with complicated issues or unprovable issues.
*Logically* if we believe P, then we think ~P is wrong.
In reality, sometimes we believe P but can't quite get
ourselves to assert ~P due to a host of non-logical
issues, which I don't think necessarily represents
a failure of critical thinking. For instance,
humility can prevent us from asserting ~P is false
even when we're quite aware that a belief in P
logically necessitates such. And, in the example
I described above, *technically* if we're in a
state where we appear to believe in the truth of
both P and ~P and the contradiction is later
resolved by the addition of more information,
then it wasn't really a case of P and ~P and
was probably a failure in attempting to represent
things. However, that's with hindsight. In the
moment it feels like we're accepting both P and
~P because we don't have the additional information
that allows us to resolve the contradiction. It's
good critical thinking to recognize that there *is*
a contradiction as the issue is currently being
framed, but the answer in such cases isn't to
ditch P in favor of ~P or vice versa. It's to
gather more information until the contradiction is
resolved. And, since some of the issues under
discussion in this thread are likely unknowable
or unprovable in this lifetime, we may spend a
lifetime in that tension between P and ~P.

Best wishes,
Ericka

bizby40 wrote:

I *believe* that you obfuscate your meaning by making your
words as convoluted and circular as you can, and then
follow up with a "really?" or a "*boggle*" when someone
does not understand, thus attempting to put yourself on the
high ground and leave the poor befuddled simple-minded
fool on the ground.

This seems to happen to you a lot. Time to look in the mirror.

-L.

In article .com,
" wrote:

I would say that if we say we believe something to be true, that we
think we're describing at least a little bit of reality correctly.
That we think it's true. That we think people who don't agree with it
are wrong.

I do not see how that can be incompatible with what you seem to be
saying. Would you please explain?

Because I refuse to believe that people who don't agree with me on these
issues are necessarily wrong.

It's an odd place to live, perhaps; but it works for me.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care