what do christians (and people in general) mean by "feeling empty inside"?

[Angrboda]

And the universe may be a cold place, but it's also a very cool place. The material in my body has existed and will exist as long as the universe. There never has been and never will be again anyone quite like me, or even anyone very close. My story is unique and rare, because for everyone of us there are millions of narratives that could be told but will never, ever happen. My life doesn't have meaning to the universe but it AND the universe have meaning to me. So does Good, Truth, and Beauty. Out of all the possible people I'm one of the few who actually get to exist, and it's amazing. I've been Appalachians-level poor and it was still amazing then. And although I'm not looking forward to my life ending, it feels like greed to complain that it wasn't enough and that it's somehow less because it's temporary. And the bad things in life and the suffering of many people who never had it as good as me on my worst day are sad, but they're not a mystery: the universe IS a cold place, and we're like billions of tiny flames that flutter briefly, some of whom never get to burn very bright at all. But it's still amazing and I can't stay sad in the midst of awesome grandeur.

I've come to a speculative conclusion over the past year that a degree of discomfort, anxiety and anomy is built into the human brain. According to my view, our psychology is evolved to get us "within reach" of an adaptation using the heuristics of our brain, imperfect as they are, but leave room for variation at its margin. If the brain's heuristics always resulted in a specific adaptation, there would be a tremendous opportunity cost if better adaptations were available. On the other hand, the mind can't constantly be seeking novel ways of managing, often failing, and existing in a constant state of uncertainty. So, according to my theory, our behaviors are a blend of conservatism, appealing to known solutions, and exploration, the seeking of new answers, new food sources, new methods. Given the relative cost of conservatism to that of exploration, it's likely that we're heavily weighted towards repeating prior adaptations and solutions, just because doing so is very efficient. However, any human alleles which put all their eggs in that basket would be quickly wiped out by any novel change in their environment. So the successful human would have to be a blend of the two. This is relevant to the question of existential angst in that it would appear that, by analogous reasoning, an evolved mind which was content with its life situation, or could easily, readily obtain a means of anesthetizing the angst, would not be an optimum human from an evolutionary stand point, as that angst, unease, and uncertainty is doing actual work in keeping you motivated to keep living, coping, learning, and exploring. This uncertainty and unease (what the Buddhists term dukkha) would then be a natural and important element in any human. If you've found something that successfully quiets that still inner voice reliably, you're likely in danger. The organism simply didn't evolve to find good solutions to that problem, as that problem is what keeps the individual and the species as a whole alive. Perhaps, rather than being the friend that religious people suggest that "comfort" is, it's actually your enemy. I don't think our brains were designed for reliable contentment on tap. We as a species aren't designed to feel "inside" like everything is as it should be, at least not all the time.


(Not that this approach is necessarily characteristic of mature religious thought; many Christian thinkers have postulated the necessity of the dialectic between faith and doubt. But those who look to religion as just a substitute for alcohol or valium, may be. In addition, that anxiety is what keeps them "searching" for religious answers which provide that feeling of comfort and wholeness.)

Thanks to whateverist as well, for prefiguring some of these thoughts.