Questions that tend to be tangential … conversations that can be difficult to follow as bits and pieces are added and taken away. There is a grouping of bloggers who fall loosely under the cloak of deconverts, atheists, anti-religion, used to be (some) faith label but not so much (if at all) now …
As with any grouping no one label does the job (at least in my opinion). And this grouping calls Mel an apologist. And they want answers. And Mel likes writing (as we all do) a blog of his interests – and the interests of these groupings can seem quite fractious. I have great respect for all participants – the timespend is amazing as the word count rises! And as I popped in and out of this conversation I bumped into a chap called John. John gets frustrated with Mel and explained some of that. And in pottering around the words and names I landed on one of John’s posts.
John’s question is: “Why did the Creator create? For what purpose was this artificial world intended?”
His context is this: “According to the Christian philosopher, Yhwh is an aseitic being, meaning fully contained and existing in and of itself. Nothing is, or can be, outside God. God is all, and all is God. Pantheism and aseity are inseparable, and because they are inseparable, there can be no spill-over. An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity.”
I was lost … I had to go googling …
Aseitic – “existence originating from and having no source other than itself.”
Pantheism – “Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.”
And when I have to go googling, I know I am chasing something worthwhile (or chasing my own tail for no good reason). In this case I am not sure.
But what a great question!
Seems to me the answer is just another unknown – so is straight into belief and mindset and worldview. Which seems perfectly logical to me. And if I add “beneficent” and “free will” and “love” then could even be close to my worldview (on a foggy day).
And I can never prove that there is (or is not) an answer. Which I think doesn’t make me any specific faith (or non-faith) type – which also fits my current worldview.
But my worldview does bristle a little.
I wonder why we need to try and convince each other that we should have the answers. I wonder why we feel compelled to find these “answers” that defend the undefendable. I wonder why we so love to win or lose, be right or wrong, have truth or lie waving like flags over our camp (and all that stuff).
So my answer (without much time spent analysing anything very much – of which I am quite proud) is currently this, and unlikely to change very much …
I have no idea at all.
Except for this …
As my worldview includes trying to live in the moment as much as I can, I am glad to be part of something I find wondrous and exciting and full of hope and love.
Thanks John and Mel!
What about you, you lucky reader?