From an LDS perspective (and my own, grounded in this paragdim), let's begin with this.
Basic Propositions:
1. Meaning can have two senses which should not be equivocated:
a. Subjective, idiosyncratic meanings we create and ascribe to existence and phenomena within the phenomenal world.
b. Intrinsic, inherent meaning that exists as a function of the purpose for which the phenomenal world was created
From this it follows that:
1. If the universe itself has purpose, than all systems and subsystems within it have meaning.
2. All conscious beings are a part of the universe.
3. If any conscious being possesses the property of self awareness, or of being aware of its own awareness, this being is inherently capable of reflection upon the intrinsic meaning or purpose of that self awareness.
4. If the universe is the result of purely, random, blind, chance reactions between matter and energy, then the universe is meaningless.
5. If this is true, then all entities, including all sentient as well as all intelligent beings who have the property of being aware of their self awareness, are also meaningless.
Let us develop a few more further propositions just for the road:
Meaning has no necessary connection to function unless function is connected to purpose (teleology). The entire range of geological and climatological dynamics of the earth have function, but no meaning, as they have, in a materialist conception, no purpose. They simply exist, given the laws of nature as genereated immediately after the Big Bang).
If the universe and all phenomena within it have no purpose (being great cosmic accidents of nature), and hence, no meaning, then human existence has no meaning, irregardless of whether intelligent self aware beings are capable of thinking and reflecting upon such questions.
Strictly subjective meanings created by humans and ascribed to their surroundings or lives are not, in a strict sense, meaning, because mind, being nothing more than a function of, or epiphenomena of, the brain, itself, has no meaning. Its function is to carry on the DNA of the organism in a struggle for survival, not to reflect upon philosophical and religious questions. Such reflection is itself a natural consequence of the size and complexity of our CNS, and has no intrinsic meaning outside of the degree to which it helps insure the passing on of DNA to future members of the species.
Let's take it from here.
Meaning and Existence
Meaning and Existence
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
-
_grayskull
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:36 pm
If God created you to burn in hell for ever and ever as one of his non-elect, would you life have more meaning, or less meaning, then it would in Dawkins world? And which kind of meaning then, is more, er, "meaningful"?
In such a Calvinistic view, it would probably be an even tie, as both worlds deny the possibility of free will in any substantive way (and the Calvinistic world involves God as an arbitrary denier of such free will).
Fortunately, LDS theology presents no such problems.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
Strictly subjective meanings created by humans and ascribed to their surroundings or lives are not, in a strict sense, meaning, because mind, being nothing more than a function of, or epiphenomena of, the brain, itself, has no meaning. Its function is to carry on the DNA of the organism in a struggle for survival, not to reflect upon philosophical and religious questions. Such reflection is itself a natural consequence of the size and complexity of our CNS, and has no intrinsic meaning outside of the degree to which it helps insure the passing on of DNA to future members of the species.
If the purpose of the universe is to perpetuate species, then the universe does have meaning.
To quote someone I know, "If the universe itself has purpose, than all systems and subsystems within it have meaning."
I think where you're confused is that you don't value that kind of meaning, so you believe it does not exist.
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
Coggins7
May I suggest for your consideration that your thinking, though it seems perfectly sound to you, has been distorted in some important ways?
Your position, as I see it, boils down to this:
If Mormonism is false, nothing has meaning.
Is that not something of a psychologyical warning flag for you?
May I suggest for your consideration that your thinking, though it seems perfectly sound to you, has been distorted in some important ways?
Your position, as I see it, boils down to this:
If Mormonism is false, nothing has meaning.
Is that not something of a psychologyical warning flag for you?
Tal Bachman wrote:Coggins7
May I suggest for your consideration that your thinking, though it seems perfectly sound to you, has been distorted in some important ways?
Your position, as I see it, boils down to this:
If Mormonism is false, nothing has meaning.
Is that not something of a psychologyical warning flag for you?
Listen kid, why don't you, in a calm and rational manner, analyze the propositions above and then delineate, in a reasoned, lucid, and philosophically serious manner, what it is about any of them you disagree with?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
Coggins7 wrote:
Listen kid, why don't you, in a calm and rational manner, analyze the propositions above and then delineate, in a reasoned, lucid, and philosophically serious manner, what it is about any of them you disagree with?
Until you can answer Dude's question about how Dawkins' premises are contradictory, you can lay no claim whatsoever to intellectual seriousness. Step up to the plate and show us that you can process Beckwith's rather simple syllogism and explain why it's valid. If you can't do that, we have no reason to ever take you seriously.