Why? Is there a logical proof that if the universe is meaningless, then all its contents are meaningless, or are you merely assuming this? It appears the later.
How could an epiphenomena generated purely by random chance in a universe that itself has no purpose or intrinsic value, having itself been generated by a vastly improbably set of coincidental evolutionary events, have meaning? How do you ascribe meaning to all the peripheral and derivative phenomena?
To give it meaning, it sounds as if your going to have to introduce some mediating principle or agency.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
This is why I assert that no matter what the truth actually is, the only thing that matters is if we are happy. Whatever meaning we can create to bring us happiness is meaningful. That's sounds truthful to me.
I agree with this, with the condition that our happiness is not bought at the cost of others. (I'm sure you won't have a problem that that condition.)
(ps, alitd, the fact that I agree with this is the reason I found you using *me* as an example of someone declaring apologists are wasting their talent particularly galling)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
For me the happy middle ground is that in a meaningless universe, if that is truly what it is, meaning is a human creation.
Very well. So you may have relativism, nihilism, and solipsism, but you can't have "meaning" understood as intrinsic meaning inherent in existence qua existence and external to human subjective experience.
If some people here would just stop equivocating the terms, much of this will clear up.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
This is why I assert that no matter what the truth actually is, the only thing that matters is if we are happy. Whatever meaning we can create to bring us happiness is meaningful. That's sounds truthful to me.
I agree with this, with the condition that our happiness is not bought at the cost of others. (I'm sure you won't have a problem that that condition.)
(ps, alitd, the fact that I agree with this is the reason I found you using *me* as an example of someone declaring apologists are wasting their talent particularly galling)
I absolutely agree. The meaning which I create for my life includes the belief that helping others is usually beneficial to me and hurting others is usually hurtful to me. For me, "the condition" is inherent in the nature of reality as I see it, but "reality" is not as important as how I feel about that reality and I want to feel happy.
As a side note, some people don't feel happy if they don't have a mythos to believe in. That may be Mormonism and in a Universe with no meaning but what we assign to it, that's all that matters.
This is why I assert that no matter what the truth actually is, the only thing that matters is if we are happy. Whatever meaning we can create to bring us happiness is meaningful. That's sounds truthful to me.
Now, let's say that I'm an Islamist, and as an Islamist, it makes me happy to kidnap you (you being an infidel dog), torture you, and then saw your head off with a dull kitchen knife. Now, in a purely mechanistic, randomly generated universe, upon what basis, save your own sense of self preservation (fear of pain, death etc.), can you make any moral or ethical judgment such that you could come to a sound determination that the moral system of the Islamist is wrong (not just that it threatens you physically, psychologically, and emotionally)?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Why? Is there a logical proof that if the universe is meaningless, then all its contents are meaningless, or are you merely assuming this? It appears the later.
How could an epiphenomena generated purely by random chance in a universe that itself has no purpose or intrinsic value, having itself been generated by a vastly improbably set of coincidental evolutionary events, have meaning? How do you ascribe meaning to all the peripheral and derivative phenomena?
To give it meaning, it sounds as if your going to have to introduce some mediating principle or agency.
So in other words, you are admitting that you don't have a logical proof?
Let's say for the sake of discussion that God was generated by a purely random chance. If that were the case, does that render God incapable of creating a universe (or anything else) with inherent value or meaning? Why or why not?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
amantha wrote:For me the happy middle ground is that in a meaningless universe, if that is truly what it is, meaning is a human creation. So the meaning that is created by believing in Mormonism is just as valid as the meaning created by believing in anything else.
Some Atheists (particularly those who are anti-faith)believe that meaning should be(or is best) created in the same way they do it.
Some Muslims believe that meaning should be created in the same way they do it.
Some Mormons believe that meaning should be created in the same way they do it.
But if we live in a universe where we are the only ones who give it meaning, then Dawkins is incorrect in asserting that Wise (sorry, reverting to other thread)is wasting his life and Elohim via Joseph Smith via Mormon Culture via Mom and Dad, etc etc. are incorrect in asserting that we are wasting our lives if we don't follow their "Plan."
This is why I assert that no matter what the truth actually is, the only thing that matters is if we are happy. Whatever meaning we can create to bring us happiness is meaningful. That's sounds truthful to me.And, in my opinion, for humans to be happy they have to believe in the meaning which they create. If you don't believe it then it is meaningless.
I can't believe in Mormonism now. I aslo can't believe that faith is inferior to reason. There is a reason for faith, if only to create meaning. In that sense, the science brings meaning to Dawkin's life, which is then meaningful to him and makes him happy.
Amantha, Hi! Did we have a discussion on happiness the other evening on MAD?
For me the happy middle ground is that in a meaningless universe, if that is truly what it is, meaning is a human creation.
Very well. So you may have relativism, nihilism, and solipsism, but you can't have "meaning" understood as intrinsic meaning inherent in existence qua existence and external to human subjective experience.
If some people here would just stop equivocating the terms, much of this will clear up.
What if I am happy without my meaning being "an intrinsic meaning inherent in existence qua existence and external to human subjective experience (same thing as objective)?"
Your meaning is always and only your meaning. in my opinion, you will want and create your meaning and I will want and create mine, because they make us happy. Whether truth is subjective or objective doesn't matter to me. Either way I want to know truth to guide me to the feeling of happiness.
Whether there is a God "out there" or not, he only has meaning to me inasmuch as he serves my happiness. That's sound very selfish but what does any organism want from its environment but what pleasure it can gain and what pain it can avoid. And if God is "out there" then She is part of my environment.
I absolutely agree. The meaning which I create for my life includes the belief that helping others is usually beneficial to me and hurting others is usually hurtful to me. For me, "the condition" is inherent in the nature of reality as I see it, but "reality" is not as important as how I feel about that reality and I want to feel happy.
Row, row, row your boat...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.