Meaning and Existence

[_barrelomonkeys]

Amantha, Hi! Did we have a discussion on happiness the other evening on MAD?

Sure did. Good to "see" you.

Good to see you here too. :)

[_amantha]

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)?

Unfortunately, if that is what makes a person like that happy, then that is what I believe they should do, because that is my belief system. But my belief system also includes the golden rule or even better -- the platinum rule (do unto others as they want to have done unto them--rrrrooooowww--;) So I personally don't believe that people who commit murder are happy. But I can't say, that is their experience.

Just as we humans create our meaning, I believe we create our ethics. I just wish we would live by the good ones that we have. I truly think we could all be happy.

[_amantha]

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...

What do you mean?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Unfortunately, if that is what makes a person like that happy, then that is what I believe they should do, because that is my belief system.

But my belief system also includes the golden rule or even better -- the platinum rule (do unto others as they want to have done unto them--rrrrooooowww--;) So I personally don't believe that people who commit murder are happy. But I can't say, that is their experience.

Just as we humans create our meaning, I believe we create our ethics. I just wish we would live by the good ones that we have. I truly think we could all be happy.

I appreciate the intellectual honesty here, but, as you can see, you are trapped in a relativistic, subjectivist world in which all moral systems are relative, and we should go ahead and do fundamentally whatever we want to do if that fulfills us, but you still get to have your subjective fantasy of a golden rule and you get to continue fantasizing that it is a worthy and superior morality structure and you get to imagine all kinds of other things about superfluous concepts such as happiness (a perception that, in a blind, random, meaningless cosmos, is of no more import than that one atom went that way and another went the orther).

[_barrelomonkeys]

What do you mean?

He's singing because it makes him happy.

[_Analytics]

I appreciate the intellectual honesty here, but, as you can see, you are trapped in a relativistic, subjectivist world in which all moral systems are relative, and we should go ahead and do fundamentally whatever we want to do if that fulfills us, but you still get to have your subjective fantasy of a golden rule and you get to continue fantasizing that it is a worthy and superior morality structure and you get to imagine all kinds of other things about superfluous concepts such as happiness (a perception that, in a blind, random, meaningless cosmos, is of no more import than that one atom went that way and another went the orther).

Why should an atheist beleive that the cosmos is blind? I have eyes; therefore the cosmos has eyes. I act with intent. Therefore the Cosmos has action with intention. My actions are meaningful. Therefore the Cosmos contains meaning.

I suppose somebody really cynical could say that for whatever reason the thoughts and actions of real people in the real universe don't count. But what I don't get is how somebody that cynical could think that God's intentions are somehow meaningful (e.g. we all either go to heaven or hell anyway, so none of it really matters.)

[Dr. Sunstoned]

The bottom line folks, to this whole miasma, is that all the atheists and all the secular humanists that can dance on the head of a pin creating their own meaning and their own human ethical and moral systems from the Big Bang to the present moment cannot impose one iota of meaning upon the tiniest particle of the universe if the universe as a whole never had meaning to begin with.

All your vaunted self generated moral and ethical systems, your perceptions of happiness and meaning and purpose, all your illusory constructs are nothing more than the derivative functions of a very complex, highly sophisticated CNS.

You are all fodder for the coming Red Giant. Nothing you have ever done, ever said, ever hoped, ever believed, ever dreamed, or ever loved, has the slightest degree of intrinsic, inherent, transcendent meaning beyond the precincts of your own subjective experience and the struggle to survive. This means that the subjective meaning yor create to motivate and negotiate your life experiences has no meaning. The concept of meaning has no meaning.

One large iron nickel meteorite, and its over. At some point, in the materialist conception, the solar system will be destroyed. At another, the entire universe will cease. It will be as if we had never existed at all.

We are, indeed, in Dawkin's and Sagan's world, not Butterflies dreaming we are men, but simply men dreaming.


No wonder secularists despise religion so. To accept it would be to suddenly impose upon ourselves the inverse of Doestoyevski's dictum. Suddenly, everything would no longer be permitted.

[Guest]

I appreciate the intellectual honesty here, but, as you can see, you are trapped in a relativistic, subjectivist world in which all moral systems are relative, and we should go ahead and do fundamentally whatever we want to do if that fulfills us, but you still get to have your subjective fantasy of a golden rule and you get to continue fantasizing that it is a worthy and superior morality structure and you get to imagine all kinds of other things about superfluous concepts such as happiness (a perception that, in a blind, random, meaningless cosmos, is of no more import than that one atom went that way and another went the orther).

Why does my being in a relativistic, subjective world constitute being "trapped?" Is it because I won't be happy? And who gets to decide if I will be happy or not? Or who gets to decide if happiness is what I should want?

If my golden rule/platinum rule "fantasy" did not bring me happiness, I wouldn't do it. I just know that I tend to get happiness from seeing others gain happiness from my actions.

In a meaningless universe, the only meaning is that which you give it. If believing in Mormonism provides you with that meaning, then by all means, believe it. But why do you want to ultimately believe it? Because you have to? No. It's because you want to. And why do you want to. Because you believe in the "Plan of Happiness." In my universe, that's a relative value. If you truly didn't believe that what you believe would makes also others happy, I don't think you could believe it.
That's why I can't believe in Mormonism, nor can I believe that a pure scientific approach to life devoid of mythos (a.k.a. faith) will work either. in my opinion.

[_amantha]

He's singing because it makes him happy.

LOL :))

[_amantha]

The bottom line folks, to this whole miasma, is that all the atheists and all the secular humanists that can dance on the head of a pin creating their own meaning and their own human ethical and moral systems from the Big Bang to the present moment cannot impose one iota of meaning upon the tiniest particle of the universe if the universe as a whole never had meaning to begin with.

All your vaunted self generated moral and ethical systems, your perceptions of happiness and meaning and purpose, all your illusory constructs are nothing more than the derivative functions of a very complex, highly sophisticated CNS.

You are all fodder for the coming Red Giant. Nothing you have ever done, ever said, ever hoped, ever believed, ever dreamed, or ever loved, has the slightest degree of intrinsic, inherent, transcendent meaning beyond the precincts of your own subjective experience and the struggle to survive. This means that the subjective meaning yor create to motivate and negotiate your life experiences has no meaning. The concept of meaning has no meaning.

One large iron nickel meteorite, and its over. At some point, in the materialist conception, the solar system will be destroyed. At another, the entire universe will cease. It will be as if we had never existed at all.

We are, indeed, in Dawkin's and Sagan's world, not Butterflies dreaming we are men, but simply men dreaming.

No wonder secularists despise religion so. To accept it would be to suddenly impose upon ourselves the inverse of Doestoyevski's dictum. Suddenly, everything would no longer be permitted.

You speak as if the world "must" have transcendent, teleological meaning. It is what it is and we should make the most of it. The scenario that you describe may not be the "absolute" truth. The universe may not be without an inherent teleology. We don't know--yet--unless we believe we do. And if we believe we do, maybe that is enough for our happiness. So faith may just be the answer we are looking for, but only if we can really believe in that faith. It seems that atheists need a different kind of faith--one that they won't call faith, but essentially is--a faith in the ability to wait for the answer.