Before I respond to your kind suggestion, I would like to comment on the article that launched this thread.
I do not intend this as unkind. This is my opinion, which anyone is free to hate or agree with.
If these five questions are what Christians, or anyone else truly believe are, "the five of the biggest questions of life," it is a wonder to me that any intelligent person would give Christianity five minutes consideration as a serious ideology. The entire article is so much insipid pap.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
The correct response to this is, "give me an example of nothing." There is no such example. Nothing is not something that can be, it is not existence. There cannot be non-existence. Nothing is a proper answer to the question, "what's in the box," if the box is empty. Nothing only means the absence of something. Emptiness and nothingness are qualities but qualities can only be qualities of something. A box or a container can have "nothing" in it or be "empty." There cannot only be nothingness or emptiness.
If you believe in God, the honest way to put this question is, Why is there a God rather than not a God. I don't expect to see that kind of honesty however, because it makes obvious the absurdity of such questions.
How do you explain human nature?
Explain what about human nature? To whom? For what purpose? Which aspect of human nature is being questioned? Their biological nature, psychological nature, what?
It turns out she is asking about human behavior. So, the question should have been, "why do human beings do the things they do?" The answer to that question is because human beings are required by their nature to live by conscious choice. Everything a human being does they must consciously choose to do, and every choice a human being makes must be in the light of whatever knowledge they have. Since human beings are not omniscient, the degree of knowledge different people have is different. Human beings do what they do because they choose to do them and everyone has different degrees of knowledge.
But her real question is, why are so many human beings so bad. Well one reason is because most people to not bother to learn very much about the requirements of their nature or the nature of the world they live in, so most of their choices are mistakes. There are more ways to be wrong than there are to be right.
What happens to a person at death?
This is one of the five biggest questions of life? Death, for every organism, means life ceases and the organism ceases to be an organism and becomes just another non-living entity. Nothing else happens at death, but immediately after death, unless embalmed, some pretty spectacular things happen to the cadaver.
How do you determine right and wrong?
I would never trust an adult that asks this question accept in the most hypothetical manner. Any adult that does not know how to determine right from wrong or considers this a question important for anyone accept children who have not yet learned how to tell right from wrong, is essentially immoral.
Asking such a question, implying that there is some great doubt about whether man is capable of discovering and practicing moral values is very dangerous. It is the basis of moral relativism and post-modernist inclusiveness.
How do you know that you know?
What does "know" mean? If the meaning of "know" is known, then the answer to the question is known. If the meaning of know is not known, the question is meaningless.
There is a serious version of this question, however, and the answer to it is called epistemology. Like the other questions, the serious version of them cannot be answered glibly, as is done in this article, because such answers are bound to be both incorrect and simplistic, as the article clearly demonstrates.
:... HankKerchief would take on Autonomism, OWK Objectivsm.
I appreciate the invitation, but Autonomism is not an ideology or philosophy, but a characterization of certain individuals who have chosen to be entirely responsible for their own lives. I would like, therefore, to decline the offer. Since, with some minor exceptions and additions, most of my views are consistent with objectivism, OWK's input would be close enough to mine, I think.
There is another reason I am declining but have probably said enough already to bring out the irrational vitriol of the thin-skinned. So rather than explain myself, which is not necessary, I wish you success in your experiment, which is more likely to be successful without my contribution.
Hank
If you can conceive of nothing, you have your example. Nothing is an absence. We all can conceive of some thing and I suggest we all can conceive of no thing.
There is another reason I am declining but have probably said enough already to bring out the irrational vitriol of the thin-skinned. So rather than explain myself, which is not necessary, I wish you success in your experiment, which is more likely to be successful without my contribution.
I dunno, Hank. You seem to want to pretend that intellectualizing the kinds of problems raised in this "insipid" article spares you the necessity of confronting critical existential issues. Case in point: What is so particularly glorious about "individuals who have chosen to be entirely responsible for their own lives?" Existentially, it really doesn't matter whether one chooses to be responsible or one refuses to be responsible. One is responsible for what one does in either case.
One dislikes seeing a person deliberately try to give offense to others -- as you clearly do with regard to Christians and Christianity. Can you find no better bete noir in this world to beat up on than Christians? Gee, that would be such a refreshing change!
You may find one day that rationalism cannot take you as far as you need to go. But I wouldn't worry about that too much. For when (or if) that day comes, you'll get the help you need -- provided you don't refuse it.
Thanks for the courtesy of writing, Hank, to inform me of your wish to decline my invitation. I'm wishing you well.