Life Meaning -- Atheists? Theists?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_LCD2YOU
_Emeritus
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:30 pm

Re: Human Bonding Makes for Meaning

Post by _LCD2YOU »

Jersey Girl wrote:One significant difference (based on the hard core skeptics that I've interacted with ;-) is that Theists use their God belief as a reference for their human bond. I see nothing particularly wrong with that.
Yes but far too many times, the human bond is between people who share the same god.

The dirty heathens who worship the dark powers are to be killed in the name of this god.
Knowledge is Power
Power Corrupts
Study Hard and
Become EVIL!
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Is Nehor Mad?

Post by _JAK »

The Nehor wrote:
Gadianton wrote:Much rides on the definition of meaning, and the angle at which one is defining meaning. This is one of those huge subjects I've only scratched the surface on. One angle to come at meaning is semantical. Another is meaning as personal fulfillment. The two can be ignorantly conflated as Christians are famous for doing. There might be a more complex relation between these two angles, though it will require some thoughtful analysis. The most interesting and deep probings into what "meaning" means has been in this century devoid of any religious considerations.

a) When most Christians say life wouldn't have any meaning without their maniac God, they really mean life wouldn't have any meaning without the things they are comfortable in life with like their dog, or kids, religion or whatever. I think it's valid to feel this way, in fact I question whether there is any other way to frame personal fulfillment, but that doesn't imply anything special about the xtian position.

b) Then there is the argument that God is the designer or great interpretor who has decided what everything means and assigns values. I'm not sure it's a stable position at all, but let's go with it a bit. Alvin Plantinga put it this way. Meaning is subjective to God so that it can be objective to us. It is true then, that if there is a God, and he defines meaning, then there wouldn't be an objective meaning without God.

But given how easily a) can come into conflict with b), who cares? If you are gay, and God has decreed the eternal sentence "A meaningful marriage is only between a man and woman", yet you have no subjective, physical or intellectual way of appreciating that, then why would it matter? What if God had decided that the purpose of the entire race of humans is to suffer in hell forever? (he's come very close to deciding this in virtually every religion anyway)

Fulfilling the conditions for objective meaning seem pretty arbitrary.


Meaning for me is fulfilling my own personal maxim: I think, therefore I must become God or go mad trying.


You have already succeeded in going mad, Nehor.

That’s likely an overstatement :-)

Fulfillment consists of achievement of note. Participation here is entertainment. With more than 3,000 posts, you are entertaining yourself, I strongly suspect.

The various God myths and before that myths about gods are quite immaterial.

JAK
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

That's what I've gotten from the discussions as well.

That they have certain principles they must live in the now that directly relates to the hereafter -- and all they do now is only given meaning because it is working for the reward or punishment.


Yes, I agree, this is subtly what my point a) was. It's all "subjective" meaning. There isn't anything different in kind from the meaning a pet ownership gives or getting eternal life as a reward. If they want true, externally defined meaning, then they'll need to work harder on disassociating it from material benefits in this life and the next.
_Abinadi's Fire
_Emeritus
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:49 pm

Post by _Abinadi's Fire »

I was going to go with Ecclesiastes 1:1 but decided that isn't really the point of this thread.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Is Nehor Mad?

Post by _The Nehor »

JAK wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
Gadianton wrote:Much rides on the definition of meaning, and the angle at which one is defining meaning. This is one of those huge subjects I've only scratched the surface on. One angle to come at meaning is semantical. Another is meaning as personal fulfillment. The two can be ignorantly conflated as Christians are famous for doing. There might be a more complex relation between these two angles, though it will require some thoughtful analysis. The most interesting and deep probings into what "meaning" means has been in this century devoid of any religious considerations.

a) When most Christians say life wouldn't have any meaning without their maniac God, they really mean life wouldn't have any meaning without the things they are comfortable in life with like their dog, or kids, religion or whatever. I think it's valid to feel this way, in fact I question whether there is any other way to frame personal fulfillment, but that doesn't imply anything special about the xtian position.

b) Then there is the argument that God is the designer or great interpretor who has decided what everything means and assigns values. I'm not sure it's a stable position at all, but let's go with it a bit. Alvin Plantinga put it this way. Meaning is subjective to God so that it can be objective to us. It is true then, that if there is a God, and he defines meaning, then there wouldn't be an objective meaning without God.

But given how easily a) can come into conflict with b), who cares? If you are gay, and God has decreed the eternal sentence "A meaningful marriage is only between a man and woman", yet you have no subjective, physical or intellectual way of appreciating that, then why would it matter? What if God had decided that the purpose of the entire race of humans is to suffer in hell forever? (he's come very close to deciding this in virtually every religion anyway)

Fulfilling the conditions for objective meaning seem pretty arbitrary.


Meaning for me is fulfilling my own personal maxim: I think, therefore I must become God or go mad trying.


You have already succeeded in going mad, Nehor.

That’s likely an overstatement :-)

Fulfillment consists of achievement of note. Participation here is entertainment. With more than 3,000 posts, you are entertaining yourself, I strongly suspect.

The various God myths and before that myths about gods are quite immaterial.

JAK


I shall amend my maxim then. I shall become God AND go mad trying.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Question on Atheist position

Post by _moksha »

Is it fair to say atheists have no collective position on sex with robots? Do you have a personal position?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Re: Question on Atheist position

Post by _Moniker »

moksha wrote:Is it fair to say atheists have no collective position on sex with robots? Do you have a personal position?


Can you define "robot" for me, please?
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Question on Atheist position

Post by _The Nehor »

moksha wrote:Is it fair to say atheists have no collective position on sex with robots? Do you have a personal position?


Mine is summed up here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uu0TXl15PgU
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Can One be a Skeptical Theist"

Post by _JAK »

Jersey Girl wrote:JAK,

Don't you think one can be a skeptical Theist? If not, why not?

Jersey Girl


Jersey Girl,

Indeed, one can be a skeptical theist.

There are hundreds of theist positions. Education is the great threat to theism as in a absolute.

Are the Southern Baptists “right,” or are Roman Catholics “right”?

Are United Methodists “right,” or are Islamic fundamentalists “right”?

The last one is a deliberate stretch, of course, There is little that they have in common. But the point is one of support for the view that there certainly can be “skeptical theists.”

We have friends who were Methodists and are now Unitarian Universalist.
That’s a considerable shift. They are clearly skeptical theists.

However, these skeptical reviews move in a variety of directions. We find Christians converting to Islam. We also find Muslims converting to one (of the many Protestant denominations) or to Roman Catholicism.

Clearly, these people who change their views within some form of theism are skeptical theists..

Then there are theists sufficiently skeptical that they become agnostics. That is, they do not subscribe to any of the hardened theistic myths and simply recognize (intellectually) that they (that no one) really knows conclusively that one theism vs. another theism is correct.

Theism is inherently inconsistent. And even Roman Catholics (for example) do not agree on matters of doctrine. I have read that up to 90% of American Roman Catholic couples practice artificial birth control. They do not accept the doctrine of the official church that all forms of artificial birth control are contrary to the will of God. So, while they may remain Roman Catholic for public consumption, attend mass, and appear quite Catholic, privately, they choose to control the size of their family. They may be theists, but they depart the scripted doctrine. Such Catholics are a threat to the power and control of the RC Church.

A significant number of Roman Catholics reject the notion of papal inerrancy. I know one family which now attends the Church of the Brethren. That’s a far distance from the RCC position in doctrine. They are skeptical theists as well.

So, why do they go to the Church of the Brethren? They met someone at work who went to that church. They became friends. They attended membership classes at the Church of the Brethren and liked what they found including the coffee and donuts and social interaction. As a result they transferred their membership.

Were they skeptical of the Roman Catholic doctrine? They were. Are they skeptical of the positions of the Church of the Brethren? They are. But they are still theists. Their college kids are agnostics. And so the shift in perspective occurs generationally as well as vertically within an individual.

Sorry for the extended answer to your question. But there is no real short cut to the “why” without at least exploring the cultural change in perspective.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Question on Atheist position

Post by _JAK »

moksha wrote:Is it fair to say atheists have no collective position on sex with robots? Do you have a personal position?


:-)

JAK
Post Reply