A lesser insight into subject grandeur

Hope is a necessitated emotional byproduct of an uncertain condition. In this particular case, it is specifically an emotional byproduct resultant from the uncertainty of the future existence of self. Do you hope for that which is certain or even highly likely? I think not, as it would certainly be a meaningless activity beyond mind exercising through conjecture and fantasy. Therefore, the magnitude of hope required of this particular engagement of thought is an indicator of the worthlessness of such activity and the unnecessary nature of it as it pertains to the human condition relative to coping with the possibility of non-existence.

Which brings us to the intersection of the definition of hope and the valuation of the word once modified by the adjectives true and illusory. Hope is to desire or wish for something with the expectation of it being fulfilled. Theological definitions vary and many place it within the virtues, which is another conversation altogether. Which, by the way someone should start a topic arguing the validity of the virtues in our times, it would be quite grande. More interesting is the level of confidence with which one bears hope in something, such as an eternal soul and everlasting life. A true hope would have a higher level of confidence of fulfillment versus illusory hope. A level of confidence would certainly be the empirical evidence to necessitate such confidence versus the individual selfish desire of what one would desire to have happen versus what probably will in any situation. As an example, most people would want an eternal soul and/or an afterlife, as most people do not want cessation of their self. On a scale based on confidence resultant from empirical evidence, this would be highly illusory hope.

I "hope" this thread doesn't devolve into a semantic dialogue over the usage of the word hope, or the truth of the usage as in logical validity, meaning, or reference thereof. Because the certainty of this thread retaining it's original purpose relative to the statement that the most contemptible of self-deceptions is that of men convincing themselves of possessing an eternal soul and the belief in a form of an after-life may be lost without "hope". As I had "hoped" someone would focus on proving that an eternal soul and/or afterlife is indeed a rightfully just expectation of mankind, is not self-deception, that believing in such is not a wasteful consumption of one's life, and that it is not a contemptible activity of belief in the form of self-deception.

Sorry Deveron, I don't mean to sound illogical, I'm just saying that all your reasoning is sound EXCEPT for your initial axiom that chaos cannot produce order. It can, and it's been studied since the 70's. Here is an excerpt:

Much has been written over the last few years on the subject of chaos. The term chaos refers to seemingly simple systems that exhibit behavior which is complicated to the point of unpredictability. While chaos was receiving a great deal of media attention, a counterpoint was being developed: the idea of the spontaneous formation of order within seemingly complex systems. This concept, marketed under the name "complexity theory", promises to solve questions which were previously too difficult to be studied rigorously.

from this site:

http://www.duke.edu/vertices/spr93/chaos.html

Eorl,

Ok, that's not quite what I referred to when I talked about chaos. When I used the word chaos I didn't refer to some kind of very complex order that seems chaotic to the observer, but rather to true randomness, entirely free from any order or patterns. If order arises from the kind of chaos you described, then it isn't truly random. And then the question will be where this first order came from.

I'm trying not to be argumentative but I have read that it seems as though order is a natural state that comes about quite normally as a result of real chaos. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but it seems to be the case.

As to the question of where all this came from, I don't know. Still, that doesn't any weight to your theory that you do.

Why do christians feel that if science is proven wrong that they are proven right?

It's a strange notion to me but one that seems to coming up quite often.

This conjecture rests entirely on the assumption that awareness/self-awareness is a result of evolution, something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In my opinion self-awareness makes no sense whatsoever from a Darwinian point of view, as it doesn't directly increase an individual's chances of survival. And even if self-awareness were a result of evolution, I really don't understand in what sense it would be wasteful to be ignorant of its origin. I mean, what good could possibly come from this realisation? Happiness? No. A sense of purpose? No. Such a life would be wasteful and purposeless from the moment of its conception in my opinion.



I really have no idea about what you're referring to with "eternal self-survival" and how you suppose this could be accomplished through man's own hands.



Religious hope is obviously not founded on empirical evidence or logical deduction, as these would be inapplicable in this case. This hope is a kind of mysterious expectation of deliverance that is directly associated to Faith (supernatural certitude of God's presence that is not based on human reason). These two are obviously impossible to describe to somebody who hasn't experienced them himself/herself, but they have little or nothing to do with ordinary hope or the kind of faith which is nothing but mere belief. As religious we perceive them to be gifts directly from God, and they are very precious to us as they encourage us and help us through our tribulations. I realise of course that you would call these two qualities self-deceptions or delusions that spring from the human instinct of self-preservation, but to us they're definitely God-given.



I disagree. It's a very healthy hope that helps us to persevere through the various hardships we encounter in our lives. The most vicious of all self-deception in my opinion is that we do not need God; that we ourselves are gods, and have the right to act accordingly.

You do not need to have hope in life after death to get through hardships. Hope for the next day, hope for your future in the here and now are far more meaningful and realistic.

Exactly what do you mean by hope for the next day? Hope for what?

Human physiology and intelligence contributed significantly to our survival through the same period that Neanderthals vanquished. Neanderthals were much stronger and capable. They vanquished due to their highly specialized adaptation to the then current environmental conditions. The environment changed in respects optimal to survival of human beings and the extinction of Neanderthals. I don't intend to argue the points specific to Homo Sapiens versus Neanderthals, someone else start another thread if there is interest.

Ancient man was certainly aware of self and the cessation of such. We are aware that we will cease to be, we don't want to cease to be, we can't cease to be, our instincts communicate otherwise. Awareness viewed as part of an evolutionary process makes significant sense in a few respects. From a positive point of view the role of awareness further strengthens the self's instinctual need to survive. We know we exist and will die, other animals only know they will get hurt and thus avoid pain. The latter condition results in an animal extending survival rate by avoiding pain, but eventually just dies. The former condition results only in animals that have marked intelligence sufficient to change their environment quite drastically, such as devising both physical and mental tools. This coupling of intelligence with awareness increases the individual's chances toward survival quite significantly. It is undeniable that we go to great lengths to devise tools to extend their life, to survive longer than death would cheat them of. For a plethora of examples just take a look at the medical field, specifically medical research, drug research, biomedical research, and nano-technology. Would we entertain that activity if it were not for the awareness that we are conscious living beings that will die? Surely, much of this technology is to reduce suffering, but a much greater extent of it is to further our lifespan….by our own hand.

Now, the problematic condition is that we have not devised a physical toolset sufficient to completely cope with the condition of death. At this point we can extend our lives to a certain degree. Potentially in the future we may be able to live quite long, possibly forever, and maybe even reduce our age. Our ancestors had no concept of such technologies or toolsets. So, their mechanism or toolset was a mental one made up of stories, mythology, and religion. All of them provided for some form of survival of the self. Although, that is precisely the potentially devastating aspect of this adaptation of awareness, as it can produce false deductions in absence of a sufficient answer in the empirically evident in the physical world. These false deductions once propagated do not lead to meaningful and purposeful activities that promote the advancement of the survival of the individual or the species.

We are all familiar with the quote, "Ignorance is bliss." By no means am I implying that anyone here is ignorant or for that matter has achieved a state of bliss. I think we all know what this quip means. So, once again, I state, the offensive nature of these ideas I have presented are the barometer of truth they harbor. In other words, the truth quite often is very ugly and does not necessitate happiness until one is willing to accept resolve of such conditions and move forward toward a meaningful, purposeful activity of doing something about the situation. Though, this particular realization does not negate happiness in any degree. Rather it points out how contemptible it is to deceive oneself with such ideas. A person who is starving is the furthest from happiness, and receives no consolation in believing that they are instead full and satiated.

If you are going to die, and the closer you are to it, you probably aren't that happy. Every single day is another day you live, but also another day you die. That which you dedicated yourself and resources toward today is that which you have been willing to die for, to sacrifice a portion of your life for. Happiness is not guaranteed, but rather derived from the results of the will to survive and the degree of survival results in happiness to the individual. Meaningfulness and purpose are resultant from your personal reasons to live and your personal world-view. Happiness is resultant from that meaningful, purposeful existence. The citizens of Orwell's 1984 were quite happy, blissful, and quite ignorant of the truth. The element missing from their world was that of doubt and a willingness to embrace it.

The truth that you will die and cease to exist forever does not result in happiness for the average person. But, the belief in an eternal soul and/or afterlife does. For which, I have provide a fairly concise explanation that it is merely a remnant of the evolutionary process. Neitzsche said, "For what, after all has fallen, should I believe in?" The answer is nothing but the continual process of doubting and questioning the truth with the goal of ultimately arriving closer with every inspection thereof.



I have no intentions of arguing the semantics of something as elusively deceptive as "religious hope" or "divine faith". Theological semantics is a dubious waste of resources at best. Unquestionably, you can certainly believe in anything you want. My only proposition being you embrace doubt and question your motivations and conditions for such beliefs. The costly investment of time and resources into religion and worship is for that of salvation through an eternal soul and/or afterlife. An interesting vote would be would anyone partake of those activities of investment if there were no resultant return, such as an eternal soul and/or afterlife. Without this eternal reward awaiting the said risks of investment of individual time and resources, the whole activity becomes a worthless endeavor at best. Yet, even still I have claimed that man has no just right or expectation to such claims of eternity over any of his Gods or religions. The expectation of an eternal soul and/or an afterlife is not a sincere genuine expectation, but rather an ignominious act of hubris.



The open challenge to justify the belief in an eternal soul and/or afterlife has not been met. Prove that the belief in the possession of an eternal soul and a form of an after-life is indeed not a contemptible act of self-deception. For, I never said we don't need God though if you start another thread I would be willing to debate that, but I will say he certainly doesn't need us or our pathetic self-survival motivated need for an eternal soul and/or an afterlife, now does he/she?

Answer this with honesty and sincerity, is the expectation of an eternal soul and/or afterlife exemplary of sincere and genuine religious hope, devotion, and faith in one's God or is it the manifestations of the individual's will to survive, not to perish, and not to die?

In that respect versus the points of view from a more naturalistic or humanistic perspective the more religious such as yourself, might be able to embrace my original statement to that similar degree as it was intended.

So, I scream into the Void of the Heavens above and bellow through the Halls of all the Hells below…The most contemptible of self-deceptions is that of men convincing themselves of possessing an eternal soul and the belief in a form of an after-life.