If no God - What Meaning ?

Originally posted by LemonJello

Here he is debating Bill Craig - [b] "Is God Necessary For Morality?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqZ5azg8mlg

I took at a look at this link and watched the video (15mins within a larger debate). Yes, Kagan here is talking very sensibly on the issue. Nothing he brings up here is original or ground-breaking in any way. Were ...[text shortened]... virtue ethics approaches, Kantian deontic approaches, etc, etc. Secular ethics is a rich field.[/b]

Like I said, it was one of my favorite YouTube debates. And I have seen the man's name spelled different ways.

But fast forward to the far distant future. The sun and all the stars are dark. Black holes expand and atoms have drifted apart in the frigid expanse of space. Everything is dead, cold, dispersed.

What difference now does it make that you ever lived ?
What difference now does it make that you ever lived "well" or not "well?"

That's what I want you to speak to, without saying the question makes no sense.

(While you do that I'll try to catch up on your earlier replies)

Originally posted by sonship
Like I said, it was one of my favorite YouTube debates. And I have seen the man's name spelled different ways.

But fast forward to the [b]far distant future. The sun and all the stars are dark. Black holes expand and atoms have drifted apart in the frigid expanse of space. Everything is dead, cold, dispersed.

What difference now does it make th ...[text shortened]... question makes no sense.

(While you do that I'll try to catch up on your earlier replies)[/b]

Earth to sonship...I already explicitly addressed this question back on page 5. Here, I will copy and paste my previous response for you:

If you are talking about a hypothetical future time after which all subjective entities have died out, then the obvious answer is that it makes no difference. That's just vacuously and trivially the case, since 'difference' and 'meaning' have inherent subjective dimension: they depend on the existence of minds. So if, by supposition, there are no minds; then it follows immediately that there is no meaning. So, this point you are making is totally trivial. It certainly does not follow from this that our current lives have no meaning, or that it does not matter how we live and treat each other in the here and now. If you are trying to suggest otherwise, then that is just really bad logic on your part.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Earth to sonship...I already explicitly addressed this question back on page 5. Here, I will copy and paste my previous response for you:

If you are talking about a hypothetical future time after which all subjective entities have died out, then the obvious answer is that it makes no difference. That's just vacuously and trivially the case, sin ...[text shortened]... If you are trying to suggest otherwise, then that is just really bad logic on your part.

The "really bad logic" was agreed to by Kagin (spelling?)

Maybe you have not gone through the entire discussion. Why don't you ?

In the course of the debate he admitted that atheism will not give a person that sense of ultimate meaning. He also did say on the day to day it matters.

So I am saying in this regard what Shelly Kagin (spelling?) said.

Now I know you prefer I not quote to the Jesus of history. But I find it significant that Christ strongly implied that His words would outlast even the physical universe -

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Matt. 24:35)

This suggests that not only MINDS will still be around to contemplate the truth He speaks of, but their value is stronger in lasting power than the very physical universe.

I find His personality to confirm that this is probably the case.
And beyond wishful thinking I believe it is also more realistic that it should be so.

The universe may pass away. But the truth spoken by Christ will never pass away for eternity. And there will be minds in eternity to contemplate and benefit from the everlasting endurance of those words.

What you have said seems to agree with the ultimate absurdity of life without an eternal truth and truthful God. But you agree that we cannot bear to live that way. So we use the illusion of some meaning on a day by day living.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Earth to sonship...I already explicitly addressed this question back on page 5. Here, I will copy and paste my previous response for you:

If you are talking about a hypothetical future time after which all subjective entities have died out, then the obvious answer is that it makes no difference. That's just vacuously and trivially the case, sin ...[text shortened]... If you are trying to suggest otherwise, then that is just really bad logic on your part.

If I may lend a hand? What difference does it make, sonship?

1. nihilum (Latin)
2. intet (Danish)
3. ingenting (Swedish)
4. nishto (Russian)
5. nichts (German)
6. ei mitään (Finnish)
7. rien (French)
8. semmi (Hungarian)
9. nitchevo (Russian)
10. nic (Polish)
11. nenio (Esperanto)
12. neniom (Esperanto)
13. Null (German)
14. niente (Italian)
15. néant (French)
16. niks (Afrikaans)
17. asgjë (Albanian)
18. netra (Breton)
19. nula (Bulgarian)
20. neuhnee (Manx)
21. semmiség (Hungarian)
22. faic (Irish)
23. res (Catalan)
24. anyen (Haitaian Creole)
25. nischt (Saxonian)
26. noti (Sranan)
27. ninajmanje (Serbo-Croatian)
28. nimic (Romanian)
29. einki (Faeroese)
30. Nichtsein (German)
31. niets (Dutch)
32. neat (Frisian)
33. mba'eve (Guarani)
34. niè (Slovene)
35. tipota (Greek)
36. dim (Welsh)
37. mixba'al (Yucatec)
38. pustota (Russian)
39. nulla (Italian)
40. näischt (Luxembourgish)
41. wala (Tagalog)
42. lutho (Zulu)
43. niemendal (Dutch)
44. nüscht (Berlin German)
45. neitt (Icelandic)

However, as you have already accepted that human life, when it exists, has meaning, and that it is not the permanence of the afterlife with God that gives life meaning, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Originally posted by sonship
The "really bad logic" was agreed to by Kagin (spelling?)

Maybe you have not gone through the entire discussion. Why don't you ?

In the course of the debate he admitted that atheism will not give a person that sense of ultimate meaning. He also did say on the day to day it matters.

So I am saying in this regard what Shelly Kagin (spelling?) sai ...[text shortened]... we cannot bear to live that way. So we use the illusion of some meaning on a day by day living.

I don't think life is absurd.

I can bear to live with it.

I do not create any illusions.

And my life has meaning. Which I don't need to debate as you have already accepted this.

So not the greatest summary of the discussion so far.

Oh, and let's not discuss the irony of you accusing us of creating illusions to help deal with the 'absurdity' of life, when is it is you that have the problem with the absurdity of life (absent of God) and have therefore created an illusion to deal with it.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If I may lend a hand? What difference does it make, sonship?

1. nihilum (Latin)
2. intet (Danish)
3. ingenting (Swedish)
4. nishto (Russian)
5. nichts (German)
6. ei mitään (Finnish)
7. rien (French)
8. semmi (Hungarian)
9. nitchevo (Russian)
10. nic (Polish)
11. nenio (Esperanto)
12. neniom (Esperanto)
13. Null (German)
14. n ...[text shortened]... the afterlife with God that gives life meaning, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

The universe without God remains objectively meaningless.

The universe does not acquire meaning just because I temporarily give it some for a microsecond. Suppose I give it one meaning in this little micro slot of existence and you give it another in your little time slot ? Who is right ?

Neither of us is right. We both are pretending because we cannot live happily knowing that ultimately it makes no difference.

Bertrand Russell the Atheist was being honest when he said that, given his world view we must build our lives upon "the firm foundation of unyielding despair."

I watched a good deal of Samuel Beckett's "Theater of the Absurd" play "Waiting for Godot" last night. I think some of you atheist guys simply have not thought long enough on your own position as Russell, Nietzsche, Beckett, and Sartre have - all atheists of strong intellectual ability

My opinion is that eventually your atheism will hit you.
You don't have to go back that far. Even Richard Dawkins says -

" There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference ... We are machines for propagating DNA."

Originally posted by rwingett
"Meaning" is not to be found in eternity, but in the minutes and hours of every day life.

Originally posted by rwingett
"Meaning" is not to be found in eternity, but in the minutes and hours of every day life."

On the basis of what source or authority do you claim to make this assertion (or does it reflect your personal opinion)?

Originally posted by LemonJello

. My view, as I already mentioned, deals with norms of practical rationality, in reference to things that ideal rational creatures are naturally disposed to value and care about and which conduce to a flourishing way of life.

History has plenty of "might makes right." One's care for "a flourishing way of life" supersedes another's care for his "flourishing way of life" because the former has more power, a bigger gun.

The Mafia have a philosophy as to how to flourish. It is to misery of many less ruthless, less powerful. Where then is real justice ?

You have to admit, I think, that real justice does not occur in this life. Justice is not perfectly dispensed in this life. For justice to be perfectly dispensed there must be a perfect judge. That judge must be able to reach offenders beyond this life. That judge must also be omniscient and overlook no extenuating circumstance. That judge must also be morally perfect.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ encourages me that God has provided us with a foretaste, a preview of the dispensing of infallible justice. But it is a very powerful one that beyond our death there is both perfect vindication and perfect retribution. We are not left with a miscarriage of justice based on everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. Rather we all will be subject to what is right in the eyes of this morally perfect, omniscient, eternal judge.

It is simply an objective matter whether or not these norms are satisfied or violated, in that it doesn't depend on what any agent(s) think about it.

I think this is your suspicion that some agent's view of morality could not be perfect. What if your suspicion is simply wrong? Suppose there can be an agent's thoughts about moral violation and those thoughts are also perfect ?

God as the greatest conceivable being with perfect unerring moral judgments is greater than a incompetent judge who makes the same mistakes found in human court rooms. It is arbitrary to say no such God could exist and much less so simply because you don't like such a Person.

(Thus my account is objective and there is no threat that moral status will hinge on prevailing social attitudes, such as those in your hypothetical.)

Your idea of these prevailing social attitudes are accompanied by the absence of perfect justice. This may not always be a tolerable situation. There is the possibility, and it has occurred, when no human regard for perfect justice or even a higher authority has led to intolerable hell on earth for those underneath someone else's idea of a " flourishing life. "

Basically man will sometimes do whatever he thinks he can get away with.
He does not feel obligated to any higher judgment.

Again, I cannot ignore history that the resurrection of Jesus Christ signals that though the last judgment is not immediate, there is a God whose authority and power are not circumvented by death. He will reach beyond man's death and dispense absolutely perfect moral judgment.

The things at issue that went on in the Holocaust count as objectively wrong, on my view, because they are obvious violations and failures of practical rationality in just the sense described above.

The Nazis thought no one is stronger. So they can do what they wish.
They thought no one will call them to account. So they do as they wish.
They thought no counter-force could hinder them. So they acted.
They banked on imperfect justice as it occurs on earth and winked.

In order for ethical standards to have absolute meaning (and thereby imposing obligations upon man), justice must exist.

We can hedge out bets that only imperfect justice exists on earth from erring, less than all-powerful human courts. Or we can believe that after this life a perfect justice does exist dispensed by a morally perfect arbitrator, a omniscient judge secured by a perfect omnipotent judge - God.

I count the latter choice as realism.

For example, it is simply a failure of rationality to be deeply disposed to care about your own sphere of consciousness and your own safety and freedom to live characteristically free from pain and suffering; and yet to fail to value, on even a minimal level, those same things in another.

That certainly is what OUGHT to be.
But we cannot mistake ourselves for the people we want to be.

Anarchy ( in the positive sense ) existed between the days of Adam's creation and the flood of Noah. There was no human government. Everyone followed their own conscience. It is as if God gave the fallen man a shot at living merely by his own conscience.

It did not happen right away. But eventually that anarchy, the truly libertarian world climaxed in an earth filled with violence in which the imaginations of men were only evil continually.

The breaking system of human conscience could only hold back the total collapse of society so long. Then world wide (whatever the "world" was to them) judgment commenced. These things happened and were written for our admonition.

What OUGHT to have been as declared by man's conscience, did not prevail over the sinning nature eating him up over the longer period of time.

So we need a Savior like a Person who acts as an ark. Man needs a Savior "ark" to save him on one hand from the spreading evil of the world and on the other hand from the inevitable divine justice of God.

Further, they constitute failures of practical rationality because they fail, in obvious ways, to foster or promote things that conduce to a flourishing way of life for rational creatures such as us, including justice, fairness, compassion, etc.

It is peculiar that in considering examples of the highest level of justice, fairness, and compassion you would not seriously consider the Son of God. Out of His mouth of such great fairness and compassion and love also proceeded the sternest warnings a perfect judgment which cannot be stopped by the grave.

Then He set His seal upon this by rising from the dead after intense opposition and murder.

" Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Matt. 24:35)

The strength and veracity of His moral pronouncements are more endurable than the universe itself. Here is the source of the eternal moral rightness in God.

On my view, violations and failures of practical rationality cannot be simply codified into neat little rules that tell us what is right or wrong in black and white terms (and if this is what you are looking for, then you need to return from fantasyland and rejoin reality).

I agree that the finer points of moral behavior cannot be codified. That is why the Law of Moses was as a source of justification was replaced by a new covenant faith in the Son of God.

The codified law of Moses was good to expose all men that they are sinners. And by works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The failure to capture all possible moral behavior to their minutest inward detail of motive, imagination, intention is evident. The very last commandment of the big 10 - "You shall not covet" which mean you shall not want jealously, with envy anything, is a catch all.

It renders all of us guilty. And it exposes the need for God's own Spirit and divine nature to permeate and saturate a person's innermost personality. But that is the New Testament salvation - to receive God in Christ, inwardly to be our life.

But, notwithstanding, the Holocaust is easy pickings. I'm glad you agree that we all have a normative or moral bedrock somewhere (this pretty much must be the case for anyone who exercises practical rationality).

We all have a human conscience. We can attempt to bribe it. We can attempt to suppress it. We may attempt to argue with it. But it knows what it knows what it knows.

Sometimes we realize that we cannot live up to what our conscience says we OUGHT to be. Then we believe that we are not able to change.

But God is able to change a man from within.

Sometimes, we are afraid that we will not be able to change to live up to the OUGHT. So we don't want to listen to a gospel of the need for forgiveness and salvation from both the guilt of our sins and the power of those sins over us.

The Perfect Judge is also able to come into us as the most effective inward Healer, the Great Physician and transform us not to the OUGHT but even above and beyond it. He is able to do far beyond all that we ask or think.

For me it bottoms out into things that, again, rational creatures are naturally disposed to care about and things that conduce to a flourishing way of life. This imbues moral life with actual content; whereas, on your view that bottoms out stipulatively in some mysterious agent, I find no actual content that satisfies or makes sense.

For me I have to decide which is really more realistic:

1.) There will not be perfect justice for there is no perfect moral judge. We just have to put up with occasional acts of fourishing at the expensee of the weaker ones, with overall immunity.

2.) There is a perfect judge from an omniscient and omnipotent God who has given the world a "heads up" by demonstrating His ability to reach man beyond the grave.

Originally posted by sonship
The "really bad logic" was agreed to by Kagin (spelling?)

Maybe you have not gone through the entire discussion. Why don't you ?

In the course of the debate he admitted that atheism will not give a person that sense of ultimate meaning. He also did say on the day to day it matters.

So I am saying in this regard what Shelly Kagin (spelling?) sai ...[text shortened]... we cannot bear to live that way. So we use the illusion of some meaning on a day by day living.

The "really bad logic" was agreed to by Kagin (spelling?)

Maybe you have not gone through the entire discussion. Why don't you ?

The really bad piece of logic is the move from the (more or less vacuous) truth that there is no meaning if there are no minds to the idea that there is no meaning in the here and now. Somehow I doubt Kagan agrees to this move, since he seems at least marginally reasonable from the 15mins of his speech that I watched. No, I have not gone through the entire discussion: I watched only the link you posted. What would I care if Kagan does in fact agree to this bad logic? That's nothing to me. That would just be bad logic on his part as well as yours, in that case.

What you have said seems to agree with the ultimate absurdity of life without an eternal truth and truthful God. But you agree that we cannot bear to live that way. So we use the illusion of some meaning on a day by day living.

How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? Is reading not your forte?

I do not think there is any "illusion" to the meaning that we make on a day by day living, and I can bear to live that way. The problem here is fully yours: you demand for meaning that there be permanence to the self, permanence to the mind, permanence to our lives. Somehow failing that, you don't think meaning constitutes real meaning. Well, then, tough titty for you, since there is no good reason to think such things are permanent.

Originally posted by sonship

. My view, as I already mentioned, deals with norms of practical rationality, in reference to things that ideal rational creatures are naturally disposed to value and care about and which conduce to a flourishing way of life.

History has plenty of "might makes right." One's care for "a flourishing way of life" supersedes another's car ...[text shortened]... who has given the world a "heads up" by demonstrating His ability to reach man beyond the grave.

You have to admit, I think, that real justice does not occur in this life. Justice is not perfectly dispensed in this life. For justice to be perfectly dispensed there must be a perfect judge. That judge must be able to reach offenders beyond this life. That judge must also be omniscient and overlook no extenuating circumstance. That judge must also be morally perfect.

You're confused: I don't have to admit any of this.

I think this is your suspicion that some agent's view of morality could not be perfect.

Nope, you're just confused again. I wouldn't know where to begin here....

Your idea of these prevailing social attitudes are accompanied by the absence of perfect justice.

??????

We can hedge out bets that only imperfect justice exists on earth from erring, less than all-powerful human courts.

What on earth does this have to do with what I wrote? I said on my view it is an objective matter whether or not moral norms are satisfied. I said nothing about whether or not, as a matter of anthropologic fact, they are perfectly satisfied on earth. Of course they are not. So what?

That certainly is what OUGHT to be.

Great, then you agree with my view on that count!

What OUGHT to have been as declared by man's conscience, did not prevail over the sinning nature eating him up over the longer period of time.

Again, all irrelevant to my view. If one gives an account of the way the world ideally ought to be, that in no way commits him or her to a position regarding how well the world actually lives up to that.

At any rate, are you sure you even know what your own view consists of? You have a thoroughly subjectivist view of morals. Ironically, and hilariously, you claim this is motivated by the need to objectively ground morals. Well, then, I think you can count yourself a big fat failure on that point. So what is it that really motivates your view? As far as I can tell, it is simply a combination of (1) a pathetic egoistic need to think that you will live for ever and ever and ever and ever and (2) a pathetic view that retributive justice is the only sort available and that this can only be dispensed through your particular theistic conception. Honestly, I think your divine accounts do more to pervert the notion of justice than they do to provide any viable accounting for it. And this is one way it perverts it: by emphasizing only retribution and by mistaking vindictiveness for justice.

It is peculiar that in considering examples of the highest level of justice, fairness, and compassion you would not seriously consider the Son of God.

Peculiar to you, maybe.

Originally posted by sonship
Even Richard Dawkins says -

" There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference ... We are machines for propagating DNA."

Can you give an original source reference for this quote?

Originally posted by LemonJello
At any rate, are you sure you even know what your own view consists of?

It is clear that he does not; for example, he keeps conflating 'lack of justice' with 'imperfect justice'.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Can you give an original source reference for this quote?

I quoted from A Reasonable Faith, (3rd Edition, Crossway) on page 81, by W.L. Craig with a footnote on the quote which has this information:

19: Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (London: Allenn Lane, 1998). cited in Lewis Wolpert, Six Impossible Things before Breakfast (London:Faber and Faber,2006), 215. Unfortunately, Wolpert's reference is mistaken. The quotation seems to be a pastiche from Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic 1996), 133, and Richard Dawkins, "The Ultraviolet Garden," Lecture 4 of 7 Royal Institution Christimas Lectures (1992), http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2007/01/ richard-dawkins-lecture-4-ultraviolet.html. Thanks to my assistant Joe Gorra for tracking down this reference.

I have not yet found the first part of this alledged quote. The second part I find also here:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Richard+Dawkins

In science, Richard Dawkins (1941-) is an English zoologist and outspoken atheistic advocate, initiator the Dawkins scale and Dawkins number representations of religious belief, who is noted for his random chance, purposeless universe, gene-centric view of existence as summarized in the following 1991 quote: [1]

“We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. That is exactly what we are here for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living.”

LemonJello,

At any rate, are you sure you even know what your own view consists of?

Sure, I know. Men can keep themselves busy enough on a day to day basis to be too occupied to think about it. But without God there is no meaning ultimately to life.

It is hard to tell someone, anyone, who has to be at work tomorrow or school, or is on the way to shop for dinner that life is meaningless. But in the big picture you have not shown me his choices are any nobler than the choices of cock roaches, if God does not exist.

You have a thoroughly subjectivist view of morals. Ironically, and hilariously, you claim this is motivated by the need to objectively ground morals.

A final judgment of all men which I said was "according to truth" is not subjectivist. It means that whether I agree or not, the truth will be the standard by which judgment will fall. Whether I exist or not, think or not, be or not be, the truth is as eternal as God Himself is eternal.

That is objective. That is quite transcendent and outside of man. It lies in the Judge.

You don't believe a Perfect Person could exist.
I don't think you really believe that truth exists.
So you want to make everything I say a matter of subjectivism.

Well, then, I think you can count yourself a big fat failure on that point. So what is it that really motivates your view?

Some of it is motivated by the statements of atheists themselves, in their more honest moments.

Ie. Nobel Prize winning Physicist Steven Weinberg -

" ... The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself. Men and women are not content to comfort themselves with tales of gods and giants, or to confine their thoughts to the daily affairs of life; they also build telescopes and satellites and accelerators and sit at their desks for endless hourseworking out the meaning of the data they gather. The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."

This atheist hopes to lift his life up from the level of farce to at least graduate to the level of tragedy. That's the man in his universe without God.

As far as I can tell, it is simply a combination of (1) a pathetic egoistic need to think that you will live for ever and ever and ever and ever and

Suppose I have the world's biggest ego, and history contains the event of the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb.

Now suppose I have the most humble ego, and history contains the event of the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb.

What difference did it make with the size of my ego? None.

What is pathetic the atheist's idols set up to replace God.
Like the pathetic hope of a Nobel Prize Physicist hoping he will busy himself with his study just enough to lift up his life from the level of "farce" to a higher level of at least "tragedy" .

Which level are you on ?

(2) a pathetic view that retributive justice is the only sort available and that this can only be dispensed through your particular theistic conception.

I don't believe you believe perfect justice can happen without God.
I recall you kind of were non-committal on the matter.

Nonsense on two levels.

1.) Final judgment is not dependent upon whether or not you believe in God or not. That is why it is objective.

"And the dead were judged by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works." (Rev. 20:12b)

2.) There is also a plan of salvation, atonement, reconciliation, and redemption.

So far I have not talked much about the latter. The Judge is also the Redeeming Savior.

Nice try though.

Honestly, I think your divine accounts do more to pervert the notion of justice than they do to provide any viable accounting for it. And this is one way it perverts it: by emphasizing only retribution and by mistaking vindictiveness for justice.

The same ignorance is displayed in this last comment.

Perfect Justice is one aspect of God.
Perfect Redemption and forgiveness is another aspect of God.

You need to believe only in vindictiveness because that fuels your dislike for God. The One who showed transcendence over death also spoke and demonstrated the greatest words of love, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption.

A Perfect God would be expected to have perfection on more than just one side. It is quite logical.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello,

At any rate, are you sure you even know what your own view consists of?

Sure, I know. Men can keep themselves busy enough on a day to day basis to be too occupied to think about it. But without God there is no meaning ultimately to life.

It is hard to tell someone, anyone, who has to be at work tomorrow or schoo ...[text shortened]... erfect God would be expected to have perfection on more than just one side. It is quite logical.

But without God there is no meaning ultimately to life.

Well, you will have to excuse me for not taking this seriously. If you had an argument that shows this, that would be one thing. But the argument you leveled against Rank outsider was self-contradictory; and the arguments you are putting forth now do not make any sense and employ impaired logic. Sorry, but the fact that there would exist no meaning if we all died out does not somehow show anything about whether or not our lives are meaningful, ultimately or otherwise. Your argument is like inferring that there is no such thing as real music from the idea that if all music-makers were to cease to exist there would be no music. I mean what kind of logic is that?

That is objective. That is quite transcendent and outside of man. It lies in the Judge.

That "it lies in the Judge" is precisely what makes morals mind-dependent and thus subjective on your view. Again, you don't actually require that morals are objective. You just require something weaker: that moral truths be independent from what any humans think about them. Of course, this is nothing special: all the secular ethical theories I listed before would entail as much. God is not necessary for any of this and your including him as some sort of lone arbiter only succeeds in making morals subjective and arbitrary, by definition.

Which level are you on ?

I think I'm doing okay, thanks. I don't particularly like the facts that I will one day cease to exist and that all the things we hold dear and value are impermanent. But I think they are facts, nonetheless. Here's a general problem. Suppose S has plenty of reasons to think that P is true. But suppose S holds, all things equal, strong negative affective attitudes towards the truth of P. Suppose further that S is not in a position to actively influence whether or not P obtains. Then clearly, for S in relation to P there is a strong, seemingly incorrigible dissonance between the way the world presents itself and the way S prefers the world to be. This is a perennial source of existential conflict. (Here, S could represent LemonJello and P could represent the proposition that LemonJello will cease to exist. ) In some cases it can be a source of suffering and paralysis. So how should S proceed? There are three elements to the confrontation: (1) the realization that P is true (2) the negative attitudes S holds towards the truth of P and (3) the inability of S to stop P from obtaining. Towards which of these should S direct his or her attention? S cannot do anything about (3), so it's either (1) or (2) or both. According to your prescription, I should ignore (2) and focus on undermining (1) through, e.g., somehow willing myself to believe that there exists some God who will grant me eternal life. That's surely the dumbest, least productive way to proceed. First of all, (1) is the product of my honest evaluations on the evidence and does not require reform unless that comes by way of new evidence or arguments, etc; it is already a faithful reflection of who I am and what I take to be true. Secondly, in the lack of new evidence, it is not clear how I would willfully go about undermining (1) because, again, it is already the product of my honest evaluations on the topic. Thirdly, this solution is just plain ugly, amounting to pure egoism. It does nothing to address the root problem, which is the throbbing ego that underlies (2) in the first place; in fact, it only makes the problem of ego more monstrous, by catering to its every demand. So, your religious prescription is precisely the opposite of what I need here.

The correct way to proceed is to retain (1) (of course always with the understanding that (1) stands amenable to new evidence as appropriate) but undermine (2) through different avenues, including rational effort and ego dissolution. I think I have already made many good strides at that. Part of the solution is just retaining proper perspective. Your inference that the impermance of life makes it meaningless is, frankly, just bizarre. Things do not somehow lose value just because they are scarce or fleeting, and oftentimes, it is just the opposite: scarcity drives value for things that are in demand. If anything, the realization of impermanence should reaffirm our appreciations for what we have; refuel our stores of vigor and vigilance; refocus our efforts to live well. Your flooding the market with thoughts of eternal life does nothing to insure the value of life; spreads your attention thin, weakening your ability to live focusedly in the here and now; and does nothing but cater to your ego. Another way to maintain proper perspective is to maintain healthy skepticism towards naysayers and negheads such as yourself. You claim, for example, that if God doesn't exist, then nothing we do can be ultimately meaningful. But, if one really scrutinizes this and scratches the surface, it just does not make any sense, since any number of the things we do require no "ultimate" justification beyond the current context of our setting. I remember an example (I think from the writings of Thomas Nagel) of stopping a child from putting his or her hand on a hot stove. There simply is no larger context required for preventing such a thing from being meaningless.