Skip to main content

immortality, philosophy and gift

I firmly believe that the philosophical arguments about how human actions manifest a transcendence over the limitations of matter demonstrate the ability of the soul to survive death.

But there are reasons to prefer approaching this question from a more practical than speculative vantage point.  (no: not about to get Kantian).

To look at your future existence as something that may or may not be, but as a gift that God may freely give, is quite more on target if you will than to look at it as something that must be and can be demonstrated.  Well, it is on target in the following manner (and perhaps ONLY in this manner): it leads you to recognize that being itself is a gift, here and now.  And by letting go of the "I must survive" type of fear of non-being, you are able to accept the gift of being from the one who loves you into being.

Another thought for another post: acceptance of the REALITY of the future resurrection of our bodies is both anti-dualistic yet affirming of the eternal in man....avoids gnostic nihilism and materialistic nihilism.  But that needs to be developed more...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more