Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

@shinyblurry

There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.

I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.

And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.

I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.

I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

SPOILER ALERT

Seriously, do not read further if you don't want the movie spoiled. You've been warned.

Here are my thoughts to kick this off. Today I'm a different audience goer than I was when I was first introduced to Malick's films. I remember seeing Thin Red Line in the theaters and thinking, yeah it's good but I like Saving Private Ryan more. Mainly because TRL didn't have much of a traditional 3 Act plot. Back then I also hated pretentious movies. Today I still dislike them, but not as much. I do dislike them when I feel the filmmaker is trying to outsmart me, or worse purposely trying to confuse me hoping I'll think the film is smart if I don't understand it.

This isn't the case with Malick. His films always seem genuine. As for Tree of Life, the critiques have been incredibly harsh and the one word used to describe it over and over is pretentious. In Cannes, where he won the Palme d'Or, the film was apparently met with both boos and cheers. Some have even eviscerated it for being preachy and overtly Christian. The title itself is a reference to the tree in the Garden of Eden found in both Genesis and Revelations.

I think we've become too cynical towards Christianity and religion in general. It's easy to politicize it and dismiss a very important mythology that can stand opposite of science. His reference to the tree of life, in my opinion, is a reference to creation and destruction. To beginning and ending. It's a metaphor for individual life as it is blinked into existence and then blinked right back out again. A transcendental metaphor that's smartly weaved in Malick's film. And it's not meant to preach the gospel of the bible, but to educate us on the mythology surrounding life and death.

He starts with a quote from Job that's essentially the part after god has tested Job and taken everything from him, and he speaks to Job directly after Job questions him, and god says (paraphrasing here) where were you when I created everything. In other words, Job asks "why me" or more specifically to the film "why didn't you intervene", and Job tried his entire life to make his existence what he wanted it to be, which for him was that of a pious one devoted to god. Then god smites him for no good reason outside of a game he plays with satan. When Job asks why, god answers by rhetorically questioning why Job didn't intervene when he was building the universe. It's not that he's asking why Job didn't help, but the futility of asking why things happen, as if there's no reason to it. As if life exists with loss and gains, and you have to affirm it as such. There is no why.

That's a great way to look at the film. The first hour or so takes us through a familial setup where we see a young boy's family in the 60s and his modern family today, both of which are experiencing suffering and loss, and both are questioning why, and then we see from god's perspective the size and wonder of the chaotic universe (and presumedly its creation) juxtaposed with the individual suffering of this one family. A dangerous universe. We see how all life has suffered through history (specifically focusing on the dinosaurs in the film at one point). It's all incidental. It's all without reason. It just happens, and we must affirm life this way.

Later in the film it focuses more on the 1960s family, and specifically from the perspective of one of the sons. His mother (Jessica Chastain) coddles him and his brothers while his father (Brad Pitt) is a phlegmatic and hard-nosed authoritarian that keeps his emotional distance - both the embodiment of being affected by passion and fear and emotion. At one point one of the sons dies. The boy we experience the movie through is always questioning why. He asks his mom why she couldn't save his brother. After a life of living under his father's violent authority, he asks why his father doesn't just kill him or kick him out. He suffers and then he questions why he's suffering, and then there's moments where he questions his own choices why he doesn't do things to ease that suffering - for instance at one point he considers dropping the car on his father who is working underneath it (effectively wiping out of existence one source of his suffering).

At one point in the film I felt as if Malick gave us a sneak peak at his intention for the film's message. At one point someone says something to effect of, "We should be good to everyone we come into contact with." This is the salient point. We can't control the suffering. We can't control the despair. Life comes with loss and bad things happen. We have to affirm it as such and make our moments as happy as possible, and also make the moments of other people's (and creatures') lives as happy as possible because they're experiencing the same kinds of suffering that you and me are experiencing. They, too, are incidental.

Malick truly demonstrates this point, I think, when he shows the boys strapping a frog to a rocket and sending it up into the sky. They added to the suffering of that creature even though they themselves are suffering. They didn't touch that creatures life in a way that enriched it, they only added to its suffering - and there was no justice, no penance. Their actions were considered incidental. At most they could be punished by their parents, but nothing intervened to stop them. Their actions were allowed to happen. In the end, I think that's the point of the movie. That we should remind ourselves that we have precious few moments on this earth, and instead of questioning why and giving into bad emotional cues (fear and anger) and acting out on those bad impulses, we should enjoy those few moments and ensure that we make them for those around us (animal and human alike) good as well. It's the classic path to enlightenment that surrounds the story of the Fall (Garden of Eden) where in order to get back into the Garden we must all transcend fear and desire. We must affirm life with suffering.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Use it to buy a stick of gum.

>> ^westy:

I wish people would do this sort of stuff but remove all the utter bullshit.


Westy, have a read of Sam Harris' ideas on meditation, I think you'll find his philosophy is a good match to yours.

Here's an excerpt from one of his blogs that makes his stance fairly clear

"Indeed, it is true that many contemplative paths ask one to entertain unfounded ideas about the nature of reality—or at the very least, to develop a fondness for the iconography and cultural artifacts of one or another religion. Even an organization like Transcendental Meditation (TM), which has spent decades self-consciously adapting itself for use by non-Hindus, can’t overcome the fact that its students must be given a Sanskrit mantra as the foundation of the practice. Ancient incantations present an impediment to many a discerning mind (as does the fact that TM displays several, odious signs of being a cult).

But not all contemplative paths kindle the same doubts or present the same liabilities. There are, in fact, many methods of meditation and “spiritual” inquiry that can greatly enhance our mental health while offering no affront to the intellect."

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:
To be fair, what has the ISS accomplished? It seems ignorant to ask, and the budget is much, much smaller in comparison, but if we are arguing what spending could be cut, pretty much anything could be a target.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN-gR9040fw

Because it's what's next. Right now it seems a drowsy step as we tumble into the larger stellar neighborhood, but every step we take away from our cradle ensures that it will not necessarily be our grave. The distances involved seem insurmountable, but so too did the distance between Eurasia and the Americas might have seemed to an ancestor, astride a hollowed out log (and even then, the Polynesians navigated unimaginable distances with tech that was hardly better than that ancestor). We need this as a species. I believe but cannot prove that a greater malaise has infected us as a species due to light pollution. Take a city kid out to a field in the middle of nowhere, and show him the Milky Way in all its glory, and he will gasp in transcendental delight. We no longer see such wonders, except as static images in books and on TV. We do need to feed the masses of humanity, but I believe that an understanding of our place in things makes us more likely to see that we are 'trapped' here, and need to care for our fellow prisoners, and that we will never truly escape unless we all go as one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVbnRbTi5XA

This is transcendental.

I like Harris--he is witty, brilliant, and quite thoughtful. But I also think that it is quite appropriate and telling that the man introduces him as an "iconoclast"--that is, in the good ol' (Biblical) tradition of the ban on images, Harris would seem to want a world where all religious images, institutions, ideologies, etc., would be prohibited from reaching the public.

In my view, one could deny science AS WELL AS religion their sovereign roles, and would not necessarily enter into moral relativism. There is NO discourse that can determine good and evil, because this binary (good/evil) is already a tension that is working at its most fundamental level in human language and experience: it is a tension that, while not representable by language or scientific discourse, is nevertheless common to everyone on an individual as well as shared level. But the problem is that no one field or way of thinking alone (and science is included here) can name this tension, as if to do away with the "problem" of disagreement and dissensus once and for all. Can't be done. Shouldn't be attempted. Why does he use these extreme examples of cultures who poke out children's eyes and shit? Well, he is talking about difference, here, isn't he? And whatever one might think about such ways of living, it is simply UNNATURAL to try and SYNTHESIZE and sublimate difference (on any level) within a single, unifying discourse. Ultimately, to attempt this would be both naive and would run counter to human experience and potential.

The FUNDAMENTAL problem I have with this kind of approach, is that it assumes we should, or even COULD, have a universal ethical system. And even beyond that, it ASSUMES that if such a system were ever to exist, it should (or could) be overseen and mediated by a single interpretive regime (science, religion, philosophy, etc). By INSISTING that we need to find a "system" somewhere, it seems that Harris is falling into the same trap that religious fundamentalists do. Its so reactionary: "Well, where are you going to find a moral SYSTEM then? To whom or what will you answer?" Sounds like the question my friggin bible study teacher used to ask. And in my opinion, Harris is already operating from that mindset.

The below quote from Sartre is inspiring to me. Although Sartre is kind of dated, I think he still proves useful as a reminder of what what is at stake in any discussion about "universal" systems. Sartre believes that the only "universal" and "transcendental" system we could ever have is our own need--which is never our own, but which is always both interior AND shared--to surpass our situation, which is not specific to a given approach or system, but which is a fundamental (in)capacity of man. This capacity, importantly, is also our incapacity. When things like science and religion get out of control (which they always have and will), who will be there to check them if not man, which is the only being who both strives beyond and knows his limits? (...) "Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent aims that he himself is able to exist. Since man is thus self-surpassing, and can grasp objects only in relation to his self-surpassing, he is himself the heart and center of his transcendence. There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe) – it is this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because we remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular realisation, that man can realize himself as truly human." -Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm)

As a transcendental concept god can neither be proven or not. Read my favorite evangelical writer, Ravi Zacharias.

That said, I believe that christianity has much more in common with say... festival of Dionysus than Judaism. Jews don't worship jesus, they ask God for another Moses.

So alien intelligence, if we ever meet it, I like to think they'd be familiar with Christianity even before we tell them of Jesus. Just like I expect we could exchange math theorems and maybe music, I think we could exchange moral thought and religion.

In fact, Star Trek had the same idea if you watch "Bread and circuses"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
(you have to watch the last two minutes to see it, and the story is left open as nothing is resolved)


Oh, almost forgot about my favorite book on cannibalism: stranger in a strange land by Heinlein.

For example... how can someone say he/she is a christian, and then rationalize their way out from believing in most of the stuff that comes in the bible?

I think he actually touches on this in the video. You're seeing Christianity as a concrete unmalleable idea that deals in absolutes. And indeed this is how a lot of people see it and treat it despite the fact I think everyone shapes it to their needs. But at one point he was talking about how many of the people he spoke to weren't looking for religion to explain the world, but for transcendental purposes (I think that's the term he used). I guess you could say cherry picking from the bible is cheating, but only if they believe its the absolute word of God and not the word of God as interpreted by people who also wrote in their own agenda over the thousands of years. Kierkegaard comes to mind as someone who absolutely abhorred organized religion and felt it destroyed an real connection people had to God. And when you think like that, suddenly to be a Christian has nothing to do with what a church preaches, or even the book they preach from.

This is a topic I have a hard time defending because I, like you, see the tremendous harm, through ignorance and force of will, religion has done to the world. But I've also known many religious people that aren't like that. Justibecause it seems the majority of religious people are ignorant and hateful doesn't mean they all are. Though It would be nice if the Brother Consolmagno's were louder than the Pastor Phelps'

Transcendental knowledge.

>> ^RhesusMonk:
Someday I'm going to write a long treatise here about why this song and this story have very little to do with god's grace and being connected through JC. This is about awe and gratitude. Christians believe there is some force that is doling out goodwill and that we are unwitting and undeserving of this goodwill, unless we respond in a Christian way.

I read a great quote recently: "Christian is a wonderful noun, but a terrible adjective." I have to agree. I think the feeling you're describing, the feeling hinted at by Phipps, is transcendental. As Newton emerged from his cabin that day, and heard the dirge rising up from the hold, something in his brain clicked. No doubt, "Unknown" was sold into bondage exactly on schedule, and so the song did not save him in a meaningful way, but unbeknownst to him, that song did have an effect. Newton began to reconsider his role in things, and left the slave trade. He was a vocal proponent of abolition in England. It would be many, many years before he would put pen to paper and write out Amazing Grace (he experienced his conversion moment in 1748, and composed AG between 1760 and 1770) but nevertheless, the wordless song never truly left him. He chose to share its melody with those who'd never set foot on a slave ship, and found that, somehow, the effect was sustained.

Now everything I've just mentioned can be looked at in a non-Christian context, and it would remain true. It should be said, though, that the presence of Christianity and its memes made it easier for Newton to become aware of just how far he'd strayed in his life. Given the number of unrepentant slave captains who called themselves Christians, it does not necessarily follow that Newton's salvation was due to his turn to Christianity, but it certainly helped. And it also helped all the slaves who would have found passage in the hold of his ship, but did not, thanks to his conversion. Again, Christianity didn't do it, but it was a 'hook' upon which Newton could hang this unsettling feeling in his belly.

Kurt Vonnegut notes much the same in a speech he gave at Clowes Hall in 2007. He starts by pointing out that, while Marx said that 'religion was the opium of the lower classes', he should have been taken literally. Opiates were a wonderful class of drug that numbed the pain, and who knew pain better than the working classes? He continues, "The most spiritually splendid phenomenon of my lifetime is how African-American citizens have maintained their dignity and self-respect, despite their having been treated by white Americans, both in and out of government, and simply because of their skin color, as though they were contemptible and loathsome, and even diseased. Their churches have surely helped them to do that. So there's Karl Marx again. There's Jesus again."

I guess the question is, could John Newton have composed Amazing Grace without believing in the Magic Man Who Lives in the Sky? Maybe. Probably. But it certainly helped.

http://lyrics.wikia.com/lyrics/The_Magnetic_Fields:The_Book_Of_Love

The book of love is long and boring
No one can lift the damn thing
It's full of charts and facts and figures
and instructions for dancing
but I, I love it when you read to me
and you, you can read me anything

The book of love has music in it
In fact that's where music comes from
Some of it is just transcendental
Some of it is just really dumb
but I, I love it when you sing to me
and you, you can sing me anything

The book of love is long and boring
and written very long ago
It's full of flowers and heart-shaped boxes
and things we're all too young to know
but I, I love it when you give me things
and you, you ought to give me wedding rings
I, I love it when you give me things
and you, you ought to give me wedding rings

Wait, which one of them just pulled a Homer? Regardless, this is one of those epic fails that's transcendentally Simpsonic. *woohoo

Actually when you hear the longer version as Penn states, where he says that the transcendental feeling is something which religion provides and atheists lack, there's an excellent rebuttal using his own logic. I feel exceptionally transcendental when I see all those shows about the real nature of the universe. For example the recent videos about the black hole at the center of the universe fill me with a feeling which I can only describe as transcendental: a feeling of amazing wonder at the idea that I exist next to these marvels, so gigantic and violent and yet here I am comfortable and introspective as a result...

... but yeah, I guess "fuck you" also captures part of what I'd say to that asshole if I actually met him.