Re: [Pan-users] Re: WAAAY OT: freedomware vs... Was: Building Panon Windows?

[Alan Meyer]

Duncan <address@hidden> wrote:

> > I was brought up in a "Reform" Jewish congregation and was
> > taught by my rabbi that heaven and hell don't exist at all
> > and there is no afterlife, i.e., no such thing as paradise -
> > though he was very circumspect about how he phrased such
> > thoughts, being careful not to offend believers who disagreed
> > with him.
>
> I've always been a bit curious about that sort of belief, as if
> there's no afterlife, what's the point?  I mean, I can see it
> for the atheists/ humanists, for whom the collective progress
> of the human race itself could be held to be the goal, but for
> someone who believes in a God, what's the point if there's
> nothing beyond the life we see and live now?
>
> If someone wishes to enlighten me...

I can't speak for anyone else since, not being a believer myself,
it's awkward for me to say what the purpose of God and religion
would be if I were to believe in God and religion but not believe
in an afterlife or an immortal soul.

But, since we're just talking among friends here, I'll take a
shot at it anyway.

A believer in God who did not believe in an immortal soul might
still argue that life has a purpose, and that there are higher
callings in life and lower ones.  In fact I'd go so far as to say
that even a non-believer might (though he might not) agree with
that.  He might say that our goal in life is to do the right
thing, to attempt to realize a higher value, whether or not we
will be rewarded in some afterlife.  In other words, the
religious person who did not believe in the supernatural or in an
afterlife might argue that our goal in observing God's
commandments is simply to do the right thing because it is right,
and not because of any reward we might get.

It could be argued that the difference between the ethical
religious person and the ethical atheist is not about what is
right and wrong or what a person should do, but about what is the
source of right and wrong.  Or more abstractly, is there or is
there not an objective and "absolute" source for higher values,
i.e., God, existing independently, outside of ourselves.

I have imagined that the search for a "higher" mode of life is
really the core of enlightened religious teaching, and the notion
of reward and punishment is more of a carrot and stick for the
simpler folk who have trouble with the idea of doing the right
thing because it is right.

There are many important directions in which this can be further
pursued:

    What is right?
    Is it right independently of God?
      [Plato asked: Does God tell us to do what is right because
       it is right?  Or is what is right right because God tells
       us to do it?  His answers are worth reading.]
    How do we know what is right?
    Why should we want to do what is right - assuming we will
       never be caught or punished or rewarded?
    Should we do what is right even if it hurts us?
    Why?

There is 2,500 years of literature on these questions.  Many
fascinating and enlightening answers have been proposed.  But not
even a fellow as smart as Plato could summarize them in an email
posting.  

But if I was WAAAY off-topic before, I'm probably getting getting
into never-never land now.

--
Alan Meyer
address@hidden