I remind you that I am exploring the logic of Paul in RM 1:20 when he says that creation reveals God's power and loving nature.
I began the logical train of thought by citing three unavoidable beliefs and then two qualitatively opposite answers to the question regarding the meaning of life. Next I posited that sane or non-nihilistic people choose to believe that life has meaning or a moral dimension, and I noted four flavors regarding what warrants such faith, beginning with humanism. Now I will share thoughts about karmaism, naturalism and theism.
Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality, but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient adult in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. MT 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.
Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in MT 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (MT 28:5-7, if it occurred) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.
The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, which reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. (The NT concept of God is described more fully in Parts III and IV, but at this point see 1TM 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in JN 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (RM 1:25).
I began the logical train of thought by citing three unavoidable beliefs and then two qualitatively opposite answers to the question regarding the meaning of life. Next I posited that sane or non-nihilistic people choose to believe that life has meaning or a moral dimension, and I noted four flavors regarding what warrants such faith, beginning with humanism. Now I will share thoughts about karmaism, naturalism and theism.
Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality, but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient adult in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. MT 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.
Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in MT 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (MT 28:5-7, if it occurred) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.
The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, which reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. (The NT concept of God is described more fully in Parts III and IV, but at this point see 1TM 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in JN 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (RM 1:25).
Paul in Romans 1:20 says that creation shows God’s power and love. Let’s look at different beliefs about the meaning of life and how they compare.
- Karmaism: Found in Hinduism and Buddhism, this belief says that our actions (good or bad) affect our future lives through reincarnation. While this explains universal morality, it assumes that the basis of meaning is impersonal or natural. Also, if karmaism were true, more people would remember their past lives, which isn’t the case. So, there’s not enough evidence to support it.
- Naturalism: This view suggests that humans naturally follow moral rules like the “golden rule” (treat others as you want to be treated). However, history shows that humans can also be very evil, so there’s no strong reason to say that good behavior is more valid than bad behavior. This view doesn’t provide a solid foundation for universal morality.
- Pantheism and Polytheism: Believing that nature is god or that there are many gods weakens the idea of a powerful, single deity, making it similar to atheism. Deism, which says God created the world but doesn’t interact with it, also feels like atheism. Jesus’ cry on the cross (“My God, why have you forsaken me?”) fits this view, but his resurrection (if it happened) offers hope that God is involved in the world.
- Theism: The New Testament (NT) theism redefines the Old Testament (OT) concept by showing that God is both all-powerful and all-loving. It says God created the world intentionally and communicates through His Word (Logos in John 1:1). This view supports the idea that life has meaning and purpose, as described in Romans 1:25.
[1Co 2:2 KJV] 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
[Jhn 12:32-33 KJV] 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. 33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
- 1
- Show all