/lit/ - Literature

>>21230104
>That reasoning can't explain meaningful actions that result in the death of a person who perceived those actions to be in the service of a higher good/value.
It's been done, but requires a bit of understanding about the games of genetics/memetics. Pic related is a fantastic read on the topic.
>You can rationalize those actions and restrict the locus of perception to the deceased person, but the actions themselves don't cease to be meaningful upon the agent's death and the meaning of those actions, even as perceived by the agent, don't evaporate.
Meaning is subjective by its nature. It doesn't exist outside the conscious mind. Granted, in the perspective of an omniscient God, all possible forms of meaning would be accounted for in their perspective.
>There's a poverty of language and description when you fall back on Scientism. Simple as.
I disagree. Simple as. You're welcome to use your lexicon. If I'm confused on a word or context, I'll ask for clarification.
>Again, I told you that religious doubt is commonly discussed within theology and it is a central theme in religious literature. Critical thinking and holding religious views aren't mutulally exclusive.
Sure. I'm here to present you with my doubts. If they're commonly discussed, I'm sure you're much practiced in sorting them out.
>Faith isn't a suppression of uncertainty in the face of doubt. A faithful action can be undertaken in spite of experiencing doubt without involving "suppression."
I argue that it is a suppression of doubts that cannot be readily examined in order to mitigate memory leaks in one's decision-making. You can still hold doubts, but when you make the leap of faith, you act is if those doubts don't exist, because doing otherwise could potentially lead to infinite indecision.