Is the absurdity of existence an argument for god?
Seems to me there are two arguments here:
1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.
2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists.
The first argument is a reaction to the apparent non existence of a deity, while the second is a proof for a deity.
Absurdity here is meaning not only the metaphor of the actor without a stage, but also the complete uncanniness, or peculiarity, of existence as a whole if god does not exist.
Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance?
1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.
2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists.
The first argument is a reaction to the apparent non existence of a deity, while the second is a proof for a deity.
Absurdity here is meaning not only the metaphor of the actor without a stage, but also the complete uncanniness, or peculiarity, of existence as a whole if god does not exist.
Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance?
Comments (64)
Well in the first "argument" the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise (I thought it should be premises anyway...). Therefore it's a non-sequitur. In the second "argument" - fuck - that's also a non-sequitur, unless you add the premise that "life isn't absurd", in which case it is tautologically true (iff the premises are true, which of course they're not) :s
Anyway, welcome to the forums! :)
To address the non-sequiturs:
Camus thought there were three methods of dealing with the Absurd, either by faith, suicide, or apprehending the Absurd directly. When following the path of faith, a person is denying the Absurd. So I assume that if there is no god, then there the Absurd is very real. This is based purely off of Camus and a bit of Nietzsche (god is dead).
"Camus centers his work on choosing to live without God."
Maybe God is concerned that you're not getting enough?
"The Absurd is the confrontation of the irrational (the world) and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart"
Notice that the arguments cannot be valid under this definition of absurd. The fact that man's constitution (longings) cannot be satisfied by the world does not necessarily have anything to do with God. Therefore the existence/non-existence of God plays no role in the Absurdity of life. It's a question that is decided by our nature vs the nature of the world
In light of the above Camus quote, one could interpret the second argument as follows:
If God is such that only his existence can make the world rational, and the world is rational, then God exists.
That's a valid argument that bears some relation to both the original argument and the Camus quote. However, if the world is irrational, as per the Camus quote, then the argument would be unsound.
It's also at least possible that if the world was rational, our longings would be satisfied.
(P.S. I accidentally edited over my previous post, so I deleted it from the discussion).
Thanks. I think that one would have to arrive at such a conclusion through a sound deductive argument - although I'm not sure what such an argument would look like. I don't think that induction would succeed, because the universe is too vast.
If it's an 'either/or' matter, whereby a rational universe entails that every aspect of the universe is rational, and an irrational universe is the opposite, then all one would need to do is provide a counterexample.
Does this mean that any assertion that the universe is meaningless or irrational is based purely off of a gut feeling?
No. I think that when people assert that the universe is meaningless, they tend to mean only that there is no inherent, objective meaning. I don't think that that's based purely off of a gut feeling, but rather on a lack of convincing evidence to the contrary. Whether this absence of evidence is evidence of absence would depend on whether a universe with inherent, objective meaning would produce evidence that it has an inherent, objective meaning.
Whether or not one could obtain sufficient evidence to justify that assertion is arguable. Perhaps a weaker, more qualified claim would be justified.
I think that one of the problems here is that if life is absurd, and you (choose to) draw the conclusion that 'one must have faith', then there is really no compelling reason as to why this 'faith' should be exclusively faith in a god.
Indeed, it might be an option, if one should so choose ('conclude'), but faith as the result of absurdity does not indicate or guarantee that a (religious) faith where god is the center must be that faith.
Meow!
GREG
Agreed!
It seems more that the concept of god just pushes the absurdity aside, but does nothing to solve it.
I always sort of thought the 'solution' to absurdity (as if one can call it that) would be acceptance of the absurd and simply moving on.
Meow!
GREG
Rejigging these a bit:
Argument 1:
1. If there is no God, then life is absurd
2. There is no God
Therefore, life is absurd (MP)
Argument 2:
1. If there is no God, then life is absurd
2. Life is not absurd
Therefore, there is God (MTT)
Both arguments are valid (unless I've got myself in a muddle). Are these what you had in mind darthbarracuda?
I don't think that God exists, regardless.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "god".
Quoting TheMadFool
If so, then I agree. But as an atheist, I tend to leave the squabbling over what properties or plans God has or does not have to others. Otherwise it's kinda like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"Seems to me there are two arguments here:
1.) God does not exist, and therefore life is absurd.
2.) Life is absurd without god, therefore god exists.
The first argument is a reaction to the apparent non existence of a deity, while the second is a proof for a deity.
Absurdity here is meaning not only the metaphor of the actor without a stage, but also the complete uncanniness, or peculiarity, of existence as a whole if god does not exist.
Or is this just an appeal to emotions and ignorance? "]
The above as quoted not strike me as any kind of proof simply because they are not a syllogism.
They are merely two assumptions each one without any compelling argument or proof.
The classic proofs of God by Aristotle, Descartes, and Aquinas are more along the following lines, as I am sure you know already or perhaps you have forgotten and need a refresher maybe:
- First Cause
- Prime Mover
- Purposeful Designer
- Artistic Artificer
- Most Perfect Conception Imaginable.
What you have here is two straw men.
To some Life is absurd whether or not god exists (whatever you mean by God)
To others life is meaningful whether or not god exists.
If god exists, to most, life ought to be meaningful. The conclusion is, that if any feel that life is absurd then the existence of god is called into question; if you accept the premise.
Once I learned of the processes of evolution that contributed to forming human eyeballs, along with the history of the combustion engine and computational science and the development of the automobile these things began to seem distinctly less and less absurd.
And now, when I force myself to conceptualize things as absurd as a part of a thought experiment, I realize that everything that does exist, and anything that could exist, can be considered absurd. At some point "something existing rather than nothing" in and of itself can be taken as absurd. If existence is possible without god, then absurdity does not reveal his hand.
Existence is not absurd compared to the alternative of non-existence.
Absent this prejudice, purely as an idea, the absurd is very close if not coterminous, with the concept of anxiety as explored by Kierkegaard (see The Concept of Anxiety). Anxiety just is the absurd situation we find ourselves in when we realize that we are free to believe, and so free to act, but we do not know what to believe, or how to act. There is nothing in the world, according to this notion, that tells us unequivocally, what it is right to believe about our lives, about human life and about Creation itself. So, we must take a leap of faith; we must believe one way or the other, if we are not to perennially 'sit on the fence'.
Camus tendentiously presents his leap of faith (the belief that life has no inherent meaning) as not being a leap of faith at all, but as a resolute refusal to believe, as an abnegation of belief itself on the ground that there is no evidence. This is almost the archetypal modern presumption; the one-eyed outcome of the dominance of the scientific paradigm.
The absurdity of existence is an argument for comedy :)
Yes the absurdity of this world does in fact provide evidence of God.
For a purely natural world would not be this absurd.
The level of pure evil that exists in our species - think Hitler, etc - cannot be explained sufficiently by evolutionary processes alone.
We, as a species, are radically broken and terribly sinful.
The Biblical witness - that all this absurdity is caused by a supernatural fall from grace - makes the most sense of the evidence.
Why else do we have large gaps in our souls, which we constantly try to fill with our work, with pleasure, with power and money, and with all the things of this world?
Because our soul was made to find it's rest in God.
And you will see , if you look, that only those souls resting in God are truly at peace.
:)
Yet procreation meant some people had a firm belief in something if you are here to contemplate it..so anyone who is born, their forebearers had conviction in something.
So God (whichever one we mean here) is a solace for his own creation which lead to suffering? If God is omniscient, and he knew humans had the possibility of straying and thus causing their own suffering, why even create the event in the first place? High hopes? But if he is all knowing, he knew the outcome as well, so it was perfectly in his "plan". Thus our suffering was there from the start. This is not to construe that I believe any of these unsubstantiated ideas that were essentially sold throughout the Roman Empire by conartists like Paul of Tarsus, his ideological descendants (the Church Fathers).
1) There is only God. many people are ignorant of him. many people have false ideas about him. many people call him by the wrong name. However, none of that changes the fact that there is only God who hears the prayers of every human. He is God, and there is no other.
2) Yes, God knew that we were going to rebel against Him and cause ourselves a whole ton of suffering. And He knew that as a result He would have to become a human being and endure excruciating torture (both physical and spiritual) in order to rescue us from rebellion. But He loves us anyways, and He was willing to do that for us. Do I fully understand why He allows suffering to go on? No. But He is Omniscient. He has good reasons that you or I could never imagine.
3) Paul gave up a life of wealth, status, and privilege in order to go on the road as a missionary. He lived a life of poverty, and was constantly arrested and tortured for his preaching. The end of his life was that of martyrdom. He did not gain wealth, or power, or status, or privilege from his preaching. He lost all those things. You can believe what you want to, but Paul was no con artist. He sincerely believed what he preached and gave up everything for Christ.
And your evidence is what? You know this because you were exposed to a culture that spread these ideas.. which were a set of evolving ideas that solidified overtime but could have been any other set of ideas at any other time.. A tribesman isolated, does not "know" this.. nor cares.. but somehow they need to.. It's just sales for a way of looking at the world instead of a product.. but it is sales nonetheless.. Christianity can be summed up in one word- evangelism.. That's all it really cares about.. If you want to meditate and think about escoteric musings.. you can do so in a cave... but no Christianity wants to go the extra step and make sure EVERYONE has to hear about it over and over and over again..because somehow the salvation of humanity NEEDS to just happen.. as if this was not a bug already in the system from the start.. Did you ever stop to think the designers of this ideology MEANT it this way so it would maximize its ability to spread and not die out? Talk about psychological warfare.. Paul of Tarsus should have taught Sales 101..
Quoting taylordonbarrett
So, we have a situation where there is (to the human) a capricious god who does not mind that we are tortured or suffer for causes that we cannot fathom. How am I supposed to be grateful or supplicant to such a force? Simply because I need to learn submission and to lessen my own ego? I do that every day by encountering other people and just about anything.. I do not even need the added notion of a creator god that wants you to love him despite your misery. It sounds like this god was kind of bored.. if that is the case it is a metaphor of the absurdity and boredom of existence itself. It is just that the metaphor was taken seriously, WAY too seriously.. Snap out of it man!
Quoting taylordonbarrett
I really do not give a hoot what Paul did or did not do.. I do know the effect of his teachings and his ideological descendants is to sell ideas really well to the Roman communities and eventually the Roman hierarchy.. The rest is history.. Germanic tribes bought into it or were forced into it or forced converted their tribes into it and thus became "Christian" of one heretic variety or another, until the whole things stabilized around a certain accepted authorized version by the early Middle Ages. As far as I see, Paul was an opportunist who saw a small Essenic-leaning Jewish group (possibly associated with the likes of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect or others similar), that had more or less the usual understanding of Mosaic law as practiced by Judeans and Jews across the Mediterranean.. Saw a way to fit in ideas of Gnosticism (i.e. Mosaic laws no longer needed due to death and resurrection motif). and mystery cults (resurrection leads to redemption).. slapped it on top of the already existing more-or-less traditional Jewish group (the Jesus Movement) and made it his own thing which he then spread to "gentile" (non-Jewish) communities who really had no attachment to the original group being that they did not really care about what they would consider tribalistic ideas of Mosaic laws that did not apply to their particular community anyways..
Anyways, what actual thing does a resurrecting god do anyways besides being a metaphor for the seasonal rebirth of plants during the spring? It's all metaphorical bullshit that is taken too seriously. Nothing has changed since that myth was created except now we have a myth that is valorized and spread to millions of people.. If spreading an idea to millions of people is supposed to be the harbinger of what is truth, then that is not really truth as much as really good marketing.
I think we have to believe in universals, even though particulars are foundational. If universals are our own construction then don't we trust what we have built? It seems to work swell. Sure you can say no, you can be like that, but that's the issue, you can't be like that.
You are attempting the equivalent of dividing by zero by zero because you have neither a definition for God or the absurd. A philosophy composed of word salad does not make for a healthy diet.
Could you explain this question in other words?
I don't believe in universals by the way.
The adoption of universals in dialogue, communication seem necessary. My point is that we can't get by in life without using them. We constuct our sense of space long before we understand its concept, but the concept is extremely useful since everything we experience seems to fall into its domain. I think while we can dispute the existence of any universal, we cannot discount their utility. There may be no good answer to the sceptical argument, but so what, everything seems to work fine, if what we experience can't be encapsulated by logic that is so much the worse for logic...this is what I mean by trust.
Whether or not universals exist might not be the right question, if they are functional aspects, tools of thought that we utilize to understand our situation.
Well, you know that nominalists are not saying that we don't create and utilize universal/type concepts/terms, right? The dispute is over whether we believe universals are something "real" (read "extramental") or not. So universals are our own construction, and they're very useful at that.
What I didn't understand was "If universals are our own construction, then don't we trust what we have built"--maybe I'm missing some context for that comment or something.
Allan Watts used the common Asian metaphor of "God is playing peek-a-boo". Its not a question of trust when even the concept of trust is just another construct.
Or they just failed to contracept successfully, or they just did what one does; both of which require no deep commitment.
Yes, and I have recently thought that this may be the wrong question. Universals are not things, concepts are not things, but they do have utility, which has bounds.
If life is absurd, has no meaning, then why bother to valorize at all? What possible significance could it have. I think, even if valorization can not be shown to have a logical basis, it is still an inescapable function of life that we cannot not value our experiences in life..this is what I meant when I asked why we shouldn't trust what we have constructed...it seems to work.
The absurdities in life are unlimited and, so too, am I infinite absurd! I think, therefore I must be conscious!
I did not mention what kind of conviction... They can have a conviction in the pleasure of sexual relations.
I just wouldn't count sexual desire, whether it is being enacted in conventional marital contexts or not, "conviction". Even marriage in its most conventional expressions does not necessarily involve any deep conviction; it may just as easily, and arguably does more commonly, consist in a more or less blind following of convention. I just think a language of 'conviction' is out of place in the context you have been trying to employ it.
Granted, but nowadays with abortion and all and contraception..I guess my point originally was that absurdity may be true in terms of no truths or right course of action is certain, but that if people procreate there is an underlying conviction that living is supposed to be good (not necessarily something I personally believe but is certainly the case with others)
I don't think it is really a question of certainty. The demand for that comes form being dominated by a narrowly carping intellect. In a spiritual sense life is a profound mystery; the kind of mystery that can never be 'solved' or dispelled by discursive thought.
I think our bodies instinctively want to live; and I think our spirits also, if they are not oppressed and unable to think and feel freely and creatively, also have a strong love and desire for life.
Yet you seem to contradict yourself earlier when you stated: "There is nothing in the world, according to this notion, that tells us unequivocally, what it is right to believe about our lives, about human life and about Creation itself. So, we must take a leap of faith; we must believe one way or the other, if we are not to perennially 'sit on the fence'.
Camus tendentiously presents his leap of faith (the belief that life has no inherent meaning) as not being a leap of faith at all, but as a resolute refusal to believe, as an abnegation of belief itself on the ground that there is no evidence. This is almost the archetypal modern presumption; the one-eyed outcome of the dominance of the scientific paradigm."
Perhaps I misconstrued your own thinking with Kierkegaard and Camus? Or are you taking a leap of faith in believing the unconscious desire for more existence?
I say that believing either way that life is meaningful or not involves equally a leap of faith. On the other hand where you place your faith may strengthen either the spirit and love of life in an acceptance of mystery or intellectual illusions of certainty; so which way will we jump?.
That seems to be contradictory in that you cannot have a "real" acceptance of uncertainty (mystery as you put it) if you assume a spirit and love of life is dependent on this.. That itself is an underlying assumption of certainty.
I don't understand you objection.
You can tell from your own feeling how thinking or believing one way or another makes you feel about life. Well at least I can; I guess I can't really speak for you, For myself I know; I have tried both.
So I can't see any contradiction.
It seems that you want to take the stance that things are inherently uncertain. Then certainly, if things are uncertain, feelings of spirit and love depending on believing in uncertainty seems more certain than the stance of uncertainty would seem to imply.
But can't we be certain that things are, from the perspective of the rational intellect at least, uncertain? Doesn't this apply even, or especially, to science. The only things we can be certain of are what we experience, and we cannot even be absolutely certain about the provenance of what we say about those. So, what do we have to go on, when it comes to what we choose to believe, other than our intuitions or perhaps even our preferences?
In other words, in the absence of irrefutable evidence or proof what certainty could there ever be for us beyond the feeling of certainty?
Quoting Cavacava
[I]Please link me in when replying, so that I'm notified of your reply. This can be done a number of ways: by highlighting the text that you want to quote and then clicking the 'quote' button, by clicking 'reply', by using the '@' button, or by typing in the code.[/I]
I'm not sure I understand your question or its presumed relevance to my comment or the topic of discussion.
First argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. God does not exist.
3. So, life is absurd. (MP 1, 2)
Second argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. Life is not absurd.
3. So, God exists. (MT 1, 2)
I want to address your definition of absurdity. You consider absurdity as the inexplicability of existence without God. But even if God exists, life is still absurd, or inexplicable. Consider the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco. 3, 000 people died and over 80% of the city was destroyed. Or even something as simple as waking up before your alarm. We could attempt at explaining these horrors, but God merely existing would not be a sufficient reason. In fact, the existence of these horrors and God taint God’s character. If God allows these horrors, or absurdities, then he isn’t entirely good, but if he can’t control these horrors, then he isn’t entirely powerful. As a result, these absurdities remain inexplicable even after assuming God’s existence and also introduce components to God’s character that cannot be explained. So given that life is absurd regardless of God’s existence, the conclusion of the second argument is no longer secure. Instead, we would conclude that God does not exist because life is absurd. With this alteration to the second proof, both arguments now promote the nonexistence of God because of the absurdity that exists. According to your reasoning, once we acknowledge that inexplicability exists, we must believe that God doesn’t exist.
First argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. God does not exist.
3. So, life is absurd. (MP 1, 2)
Second argument:
1. Without God, life is absurd.
2. Life is not absurd.
3. So, God exists. (MT 1, 2)
I want to address your definition of absurdity. You consider absurdity as the inexplicability of existence without God. But even if God exists, life is still absurd, or inexplicable. Consider the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco. 3, 000 people died and over 80% of the city was destroyed. Or even something as simple as waking up before your alarm. We could attempt at explaining these horrors, but God merely existing would not be a sufficient reason. In fact, the existence of these horrors and God taint God’s character. If God allows these horrors, or absurdities, then he isn’t entirely good, but if he can’t control these horrors, then he isn’t entirely powerful. As a result, these absurdities remain inexplicable even after assuming God’s existence and also introduce components to God’s character that cannot be explained. So given that life is absurd regardless of God’s existence, the conclusion of the second argument is no longer secure. Instead, we would conclude that God does not exist because life is absurd. With this alteration to the second proof, both arguments now promote the nonexistence of God because of the absurdity that exists. According to your reasoning, once we acknowledge that inexplicability exists, we must believe that God doesn’t exist.
So, it depends on the situation and the individual, as always :)
Quoting darthbarracuda
If existence is absurd because its being is beyond the principle of sufficient reason, and one seeks to make existence meaningful by deeming it the creation of God, who is beyond the principle of sufficient reason, then that would quite naturally entail that God is absurd. And, if God is absurd, how would anything God creates not be?
I think everybody from Tristan Tzara – a prominent founder of Dadaism - to folk such as Eugene Ionesco and clan - playwrights of the Theater of the Absurd - would approve. :halo:
… and yet there’s meaning within existence, such as in some of the posts on this forum, arguably excluding this one. :naughty:
I've been pondering upon the nexus between God and meaning for the past 7 years or so, off and on though.
Here's what I discovered: It's all got to do with infinity in general or, to be more specific, immortality, the other side of this coin being finitude/end or, in more familiar language, death & decay. Think of it, if we're mortal creatures, death will ready or not take us one day. What happens next is important. After the Grim Reaper claims us, we will be but memories in the minds and hearts of those who we shared our lives with, these memories will fade over time no doubt and these very people who were kind enough to remember you will too perish. In short, you will, in time, sometimes even taking millennia, cease to be in any way, shape, or form. This, in my book means it's as if you never existed. This is the problem: you having existed = you having not existed. Life then becomes meaningless, does it not? After all life = no life, existence = nonexistence and if one finds nonexistence bereft of meaning, it follows quite naturally that life/existence too is equally if not more pointless; after all, though we linger on in memories after we meet our end, these memories too die out, slowly maybe but surely.
Thus, the meaning of lie seems intertwined with immoratility of some kind. No prizes will be awarded for guessing who promises eternal life. God, because fae is the guarantor of everlasting life then becomes the key to the meaning of life. We can't conceive of meaning unless we live forever and look who's offering immortality? God!
However, there's a catch, a moral one. God's gift of immortality comes with a condition - be good and God vows to make it fun (heaven), be bad and you'd wish you were dead! (hell).
Our intuitions inform us that immortality alone just won't do. We need enjoyment/happiness/pleasure to go with it. It's like one of your favorite combinations of pizza toppings - each taken alone does nothing to your tastebuds but together, yummy! What if this is an either or but not both choice? The boredom of an immortal must be as painful as the cauldrons of boiling oil is for the denizens of hell.
This exact combo of happiness + immortality is what transhumanism is trying its best to put on the table for free consumption at a future date when this becomes possible. Are transhumanists god(s)? :chin:
Now, what's up with those who are willing to lay down their lives for God? History is full of stories about saints who would rather endure horrific torture followed by execution than turn their backs on God. Perhaps they were convinced, just like muslim suicide attackers are these days, that they would end up in heaven, restored to their former self. False lead!
Such a view of God as outlined above is disappointingly parochial but the odds are it's true, sad! God, only as a means to our own selfish ends. There's a upside to this tragic story though - we know ourselves, very well I might add. The Delphic Orcale was spot on! Temet Nosce!
Quite possibly, the point of the entire journey - from death and suffering to God and back from God to death and suffering - is a psychological one, to look at ourselves straight in the eye (don't try this with lions/tigers) and call it as you see it.
A spade is a spade or...is it?
[quote=Dr. Lanning]That, my friend, is the right question[/quote]