So, the union has been pretty dead now for a while...

I apologize for how long it's taken to respond. Last week was my Spring Break, and I didn't wish to spend it on the computer, although I probably would have had a better time on the computer during the first half. The second half, however, was amazing, so I do not regret it.

What sort of central existential questions do churches readily supply answers to? Of course, they readily supply answers to questions such as why we are here, and how we got here, but those aren't questions that I've really come across being discussed in the existentialist works I've read.

Android339

No need to apologize here - it's just good to hear from you.

I think churches do readily answer all of the central existential questions - as is their purpose. That might sound glib, but (to me) existentialism is about the self and focuses on finding meaning in existence. This meaning is already subsumed to "greater authorities" in most organised religions. 

I do wonder what you get out of existentialism that you don't get out of faith based belief. For instance, if you accept formal religious answers as to "why we are here" and "what our purpose is", questions about the meaning of your individual life necessarily follows from that. Your individual purpose becomes automatically embroiled in the ambitions, desires and goals you've been set to achieve by the tenets of the faith you follow.

 

I'd say that the temporal nature of the pleasures that an aesthete generally seeks lends itself to despair when one can no longer enjoy the pleasures, only remembering what it was like. I think that's the definition of despair as talked about by Kierkegaard, only being able to remember the temporal for the temporal is just that - momentary.

Android339

I can't really accept that premise of Kirkegaard's. It really does unravel, depending on how "despair", "pleasure" and "memory" are interpreted. It also rather depends on how you define an "aesthete", and if such a person could exist in reality, or simply as an aid to this woolly argument. I also disagree about the powerlessness of memory on emotion alluded to in his assertion. 

I think that some churches do a good job at using the money collected by tithes to benefit others. Also, I don't think that the amount of money one gives away should be vast by an objective standard to be considered a proper tithe. I mean, in general, I think that most Christians, at least, consider 10% of any amount of income a proper tithe, which is difficult for some people, and also difficult for the rich people who don't want to give up any of their money.

Android339

I wouldn't have thought a 10% tithe is as accepted in the UK as it is in the USA for being Christian. I personally think tithing formalises and institutionalises charity, making it easier for financial mismanagement. Rather than expect donations based on work done - on merit - in an open and honest way; the expectation that you should give some random mystical percentage of your (gross or net) income, just because everybody else does, seems like emotional blackmail more than genuine benevolence. Since there seems to be no relationship between money in and money out, you can't be sure that church money is being used efficiently or effectively.

Well, what I was mostly asking was what topics in existentialism have you found addressed in the works of existentialist authors? I ask this simply because while such questions as "why are we here" and "how did we get here" may seem like central existential questions, I have never seen them explicitly addressed in existentialist works. Rather, I've found that most existentialist philosophy discusses aspects of the human condition that would have to be discussed whether there was a god or not. Sarte, for instance, while not believing in a god, would say that even if there was a god, his existentialist concept of "abandonment" would still an aspect of the human condition.

Android339

I'd have thought that those questions are difficult to resolve objectively - without some sort of assurance from an organised religion, that is! In the absence of such easy answers (and therefore in dismissing organised religion), the existential agenda follows on naturally for me. The human condition becomes material in the absence of religious deference.

I don't think the existential dialogue would be the same if there were a God, as Sartre points out in your example. The sense of abandonment is an aspect of our own human condition, which Sartre transfers on believers in the face of the knowledge of suffering. Perhaps it shows "existence precedes essense" - I suggest this could be a driver for his atheism. Sartre wrote "Being and Nothingness" and "The Transcendence of the Ego" - perhaps those titles address the central existential questions you've missed out on so far.

 

Yet those aren't the sort of existential questions that I've encountered in the works of existentialist authors that I've read. While religion may influence the answers to the existential questions they ponder, I haven't seen any explicit, direct, and/or necessary correlation with any organized system of belief.

Android339

So what, if anything, do you get out of existentialism that you don't get out of religion?

My point is that there is typically a rather large chasm between much existentialist thought and religious thought. Although it does all rather depend on how "existentialist" is defined I guess, since it could really mean anything... But I regard "key" existentialist philosophers have given rise to the questioning of faith based belief and both legitimised and popularised atheism to a huge degree.  

  

According to Kierkegaard there are existential costs for every way of life. While discussing the aesthetic life he wasn't arguing against it, but merely analyzing the inevitable existential cost of such a life, as he did with the ethical life and the religious life. I think it's a very reasonable assertion to suggest that when one has decided that his purpose is to serve his temporal desires, then he must face the fact that what he does is indeed temporal, which lends itself to despair. Is it not natural to ponder the end of your life and feel somewhat negative concerning the end? I know there are those who aren't afraid of death, who cheerfully accept it as a natural part of life, but I think the instinct is to be somewhat averse to death. 

Android339

As I said before, I don't agree with Kirkegaard's categorisations, generalisations, or his conclusions. I can't see how the assertion is reasonable when you suggest people decide their purpose is to serve "temporal desires" in this tri-dimensional (ot two-dimensional for me) existence. I don't think the temporal nature of existence does necessarily lead to despair. For instance, it could be a motivator for action. If you've lived a full, long, fulfilling and decent life, you might not be as afraid of death. Even at my own young age, I can tell that I'm nowhere near as young as I used to be and I'm starting to wear out. I can say that I've developed a different view of death myself as I've grown old and turned up at steadily increasing numbers of funerals.

From what I understand, a 10% tithe is an accepted norm, as that is what is written in the Bible. I don't know why it wouldn't be as accepted in the UK as it is in the USA, that being the case. Some people may pay tithes because they are guilted into it, but I think it unfair to suggest that everyone who pays a tithe does so because he feels guilty. And while I think that some churches may mismanage their funds, again, I think it unfair to suggest that it is something as a direct result of their being a church. I see no reason to suggest that there is no church that could handle its funds efficiently or effectively. I know some churches that will tell the congregation out right what the tithes will be used for, whether it be for building expansion (as is sometimes necessary) or to support missionaries they are funding, or whatever, and in such churches I've found that a tithe is not required. My grandmother, for instance, the wife of my great-grandfather who was the pastor, when church hopping to find a church she felt she could be a part of would only pay a tithe if she felt the church was doing a good job.

Android339

I didn't know that, so I checked out your source: According to Old Testament law it should actually be 23.3%. Nowhere is the amount given in the New Testament, according to "GotQuestions". I'm not suggesting that everyone who tithes feels guilty. I'm suggesting that many organised churches mismanage, or hoarde their funds. I'm also saying that "accepted norms" can amount to emotional blackmail. The other places that charge for subs tend to give some sort of direct and proportional goods or services for it. 

I wish I was still able to contribute to TAU discussions.

These days, I am so critical of Islam that I'd end up agreeing with a lot of people regardless of my starting arguments.