I think an important distinction is being lost between meaning, as such, and the source of meaning. I have directed my attention on the later, as in, what are the aspect(s) of reality necessary for the human mind to identify and form concepts about sensible bodies. I say that the generation of meaning is not possible with the tools available to ontological naturalism. That conclusion is also the general consensus of those naturalists that have seriously considered the issue. If naturalism is true, then mind is either an illusion or epiphenomena. Either way, true intentionality is out the window. Thus when I speak of nihilism, I am referring to positions that ultimately deny the intelligibility of sensible reality. So for example, I feel that methodological naturalism is absolutely necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge but that ontological naturalism is inconsistent with the veracity of scientific inquiry.
Anyone can see that meaning has a role in our understanding of reality. Statements about what the meaning of life, like “be fruitful and multiply” or “maximize the well-being of all”, presuppose that intellectual content somehow corresponds to external reality. Atheist and believers alike assign values and people can debate the relative merits of those values, like whether externally imposed meaning is better or worse than internally assigned meaning. My opinion is that acceptance of external meaning as one’s own is not essentially different from making one’s own meaning. Everyone faces the inescapable freedom to make existential choices about what kind of being they are.
That said, the context within which that choice occurs matters greatly. For those who adhere to naturalism all paths are equally valid. I say that moderate realism connects us to varying degrees of good that can be sought.
Anyone can see that meaning has a role in our understanding of reality. Statements about what the meaning of life, like “be fruitful and multiply” or “maximize the well-being of all”, presuppose that intellectual content somehow corresponds to external reality. Atheist and believers alike assign values and people can debate the relative merits of those values, like whether externally imposed meaning is better or worse than internally assigned meaning. My opinion is that acceptance of external meaning as one’s own is not essentially different from making one’s own meaning. Everyone faces the inescapable freedom to make existential choices about what kind of being they are.
That said, the context within which that choice occurs matters greatly. For those who adhere to naturalism all paths are equally valid. I say that moderate realism connects us to varying degrees of good that can be sought.
