Dealing with existential nihilism

[Amarok]

Unsupported assertion, personal opinion pretending to be knowledge, blah, blah, blah... poser.

yes we know that's all  you do Neo you don't need to tell us

[Neo-Scholastic]

But I don't think it's true that religion is ultimately about anything.  Religion is the linguistic expression of the human capacity for awe, a lack of knowledge about the nature of reality, and a sense of mystery.

I agree that humans have the capacity for awe and a sense of mystery. That much is obvious. The question I have is to what is awe a response and what is our relationship with that sense of mystery. I will also acknowledge that such feelings do not prove much. At the same time, I say that such feelings do legitimize belief in the divine and if an mentally competent believer has reasonably examined various objections and potential defeaters then that belief is warranted.

In other words, he's [MK] bullshitting….He cannot accept that people see his view as a cultural artifact-- he thinks we are deliberately ignoring the truth.

YMMV. There is always a danger of that in philosophy. At the same time, MK is a special case because his diction is distinctly non-Western. I find myself translating his arguments into terms that more closely correspond to the nomenclature of Western philosophy. For example, when he says “praiseworthy”, I hear “perfection”.

The truth is that there are clearly great mysteries at work-- but the mysteries of creation, of consciousness, and so on, do not require a personal God idea.  They require diligent real investigation much more than the suspension of disbelief.  To be frank, your religion hasn't really progressed much in the past 2000 years-- right or wrong, it is not growing in interesting ways, and not adding new contributions to our society…My position is this: a real believer in God must look to facts as the expression of God's truths.  That means dropping mythology and investigating actual truths through observation and experimentation.  In other words, if you aren't primarily interested in Scientific inquiry as the best tool for learning the truth, you are shouting about God while covering your eyes and ears to avoid being exposed to the truth.  The deliberate suspension of disbelief, then, isn't service to God-- it's evidence of a lack of faith that wherever in the Universe you look, you will necessarily find God written in everything from QM particles out to the farthest reaches of the Universe.

That sounded a bit hyperbolic to me. I often write in a more polemic style to make a point. I will assume you were doing the same.

Many skeptics suggest that believers have failed some epistemic obligation. They wrap this idea with the dubious moral imperative that no one should believe anything without proof as some kind of cognitive obligation. In their opinion, anyone who fails in that moral duty must be either dishonest or indoctrinated or mentally deficient for not adhering to the tenets of classical foundationalism.  It’s text book circular reasoning – claiming that classical foundationalism is true by appealing to classical foundationalism. (and then insulting those who don't agree)

So in the end, Benny, your appeals to Science TM as the only reliable means to arrive at truths stands on feet of clay. There really isn’t any proof that classical foundationalism exhausts all the means by which people can gain knowledge. What if, instead of being the opposite of knowledge, true faith is a special kind of knowledge, in the same category as self-evident principles and incorrigible experiences. Or to see it from another angle, true skepticism has no downward limit and ultimately undermines even classical foundationalism. What if our incorrigible experiences are illusions? What if self-evident propositions are cognitive tricks aimed only at fitness and not truth? At some point a fellow must grant that he has only made an existential choice, completely without appeal to outside principles, about how he goes about understanding the world.

Next I submit to you ( and some of my Christian brothers) that your observations about religion look in the wrong direction. Religion is not a form of inquiry about the natural world. That is indeed the domain of the sciences and the humanities. Religious practice is a way to cultivate a relationship with the divine and truths it reveal do not progress because they are timeless answers to the most primal longings of the human heart.

[Brian37]

So in the end, Benny, your appeals to Science TM as the only reliable means to arrive at truths stands on feet of clay.

Um no, scientific method is a tool, and no, it is not set in clay, it is a process that leads us to new discoveries. It is why we drive cars now instead of riding horses. It is why we got to the moon. It is why we have flu vaccines and make new ones every year, because scientific method teaches the user to go where the evidence leads and adapt to changing data.

Yes it is an appeal, to FACTS and data, but so what. It is not a religion and is not there to cling to the mythologies of antiquity. If it were not for science we'd still be living in the stone age.

There is a huge difference to appealing with reason. logic, and scientific method, and what theists do by saying "my religion has pretty stories in it", yea and so what, they all have pretty stories in them. I can also find pretty stories in Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter without literally believing them to be true.

[Amarok]

But I don't think it's true that religion is ultimately about anything.  Religion is the linguistic expression of the human capacity for awe, a lack of knowledge about the nature of reality, and a sense of mystery.

I agree that humans have the capacity for awe and a sense of mystery. That much is obvious. The question I have is to what is awe a response and what is our relationship with that sense of mystery. I will also acknowledge that such feelings do not prove much. At the same time, I say that such feelings do legitimize belief in the divine and if an mentally competent believer has reasonably examined various objections and potential defeaters then that belief is warranted.

In other words, he's [MK] bullshitting….He cannot accept that people see his view as a cultural artifact-- he thinks we are deliberately ignoring the truth.

YMMV. There is always a danger of that in philosophy. At the same time, MK is a special case because his diction is distinctly non-Western. I find myself translating his arguments into terms that more closely correspond to the nomenclature of Western philosophy. For example, when he says “praiseworthy”, I hear “perfection”.

The truth is that there are clearly great mysteries at work-- but the mysteries of creation, of consciousness, and so on, do not require a personal God idea.  They require diligent real investigation much more than the suspension of disbelief.  To be frank, your religion hasn't really progressed much in the past 2000 years-- right or wrong, it is not growing in interesting ways, and not adding new contributions to our society…My position is this: a real believer in God must look to facts as the expression of God's truths.  That means dropping mythology and investigating actual truths through observation and experimentation.  In other words, if you aren't primarily interested in Scientific inquiry as the best tool for learning the truth, you are shouting about God while covering your eyes and ears to avoid being exposed to the truth.  The deliberate suspension of disbelief, then, isn't service to God-- it's evidence of a lack of faith that wherever in the Universe you look, you will necessarily find God written in everything from QM particles out to the farthest reaches of the Universe.

That sounded a bit hyperbolic to me. I often write in a more polemic style to make a point. I will assume you were doing the same.

Many skeptics suggest that believers have failed some epistemic obligation. They wrap this idea with the dubious moral imperative that no one should believe anything without proof as some kind of cognitive obligation. In their opinion, anyone who fails in that moral duty must be either dishonest or indoctrinated or mentally deficient for not adhering to the tenets of classical foundationalism.  It’s text book circular reasoning – claiming that classical foundationalism is true by appealing to classical foundationalism. (and then insulting those who don't agree)

So in the end, Benny, your appeals to Science TM as the only reliable means to arrive at truths stands on feet of clay. There really isn’t any proof that classical foundationalism exhausts all the means by which people can gain knowledge. What if, instead of being the opposite of knowledge, true faith is a special kind of knowledge, in the same category as self-evident principles and incorrigible experiences. Or to see it from another angle, true skepticism has no downward limit and ultimately undermines even classical foundationalism. What if our incorrigible experiences are illusions? What if self-evident propositions are cognitive tricks aimed only at fitness and not truth? At some point a fellow must grant that he has only made an existential choice, completely without appeal to outside principles, about how he goes about understanding the world.

Next I submit to you ( and some of my Christian brothers) that your observations about religion look in the wrong direction. Religion is not a form of inquiry about the natural world. That is indeed the domain of the sciences and the humanities. Religious practice is a way to cultivate a relationship with the divine and truths it reveal do not progress because they are timeless answers to the most primal longings of the human heart.

And your appeals to a relationship with magic pixies for truth has no feet at all in fact no legs ethier

---

So in the end, Benny, your appeals to Science TM as the only reliable means to arrive at truths stands on feet of clay.

Um no, scientific method is a tool, and no, it is not set in clay, it is a process that leads us to new discoveries. It is why we drive cars now instead of riding horses. It is why we got to the moon. It is why we have flu vaccines and make new ones every year, because scientific method teaches the user to go where the evidence leads and adapt to changing data.

Yes it is an appeal, to FACTS and data, but so what. It is not a religion and is not there to cling to the mythologies of antiquity. If it were not for science we'd still be living in the stone age.

There is a huge difference to appealing with reason. logic, and scientific method, and what theists do by saying "my religion has pretty stories in it", yea and so what, they all have pretty stories in them. I can also find pretty stories in Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter without literally believing them to be true.

Science is useful and factual . Religion is useless and stands on nothing but nice sounding fiction

---

Atheism and science are a tireless  bird or cloud able to swore on the winds of evidence

Theism and Religion are a rotting bastion built on dogma , ignorance and stagnation. It's crumbling walls manned by multitudes of apologist and preacher desperately and futiley nailing boards and splashing paint to stave off the rot .Often adding new rooms on cracking foundations and twisting corridors that end no were and might as well not be.

[bennyboy]

So in the end, Benny, your appeals to Science TM as the only reliable means to arrive at truths stands on feet of clay. There really isn’t any proof that classical foundationalism exhausts all the means by which people can gain knowledge. What if, instead of being the opposite of knowledge, true faith is a special kind of knowledge, in the same category as self-evident principles and incorrigible experiences. Or to see it from another angle, true skepticism has no downward limit and ultimately undermines even classical foundationalism. What if our incorrigible experiences are illusions? What if self-evident propositions are cognitive tricks aimed only at fitness and not truth? At some point a fellow must grant that he has only made an existential choice, completely without appeal to outside principles, about how he goes about understanding the world.

It's impossible to appeal to Science TM, as science is neither an institution or a religion. It is a philosophical position, that one will attempt to pursue knowledge through observation.

You can make philosophical arguments about solipsism and so on. But in the end, WHATEVER constitutes reality, you would better serve God by attempting to understand it than to avoid understanding it.

Next I submit to you ( and some of my Christian brothers) that your observations about religion look in the wrong direction. Religion is not a form of inquiry about the natural world. That is indeed the domain of the sciences and the humanities. Religious practice is a way to cultivate a relationship with the divine and truths it reveal do not progress because they are timeless answers to the most primal longings of the human heart.

Well, humanity needs to progress. Your ideas have had thousands of years to come to fruition, and still babies starve in Africa, and people attack each other over animal passions, jealousies and fears. Unless you can demonstrate that your eternal truths can benefit us here and now, or that our actions here and now really do matter to something which is eternal, your ideas are going to be ignored as irrelevant to the progress of humanity.

EVEN IF some of your religious ideas are true, the OP is about existential nihilism, and I'm pretty sure you lack the capacity to demonstrate that your view on that issue is better than anyone else's, except by an appeal to wishy-thinking.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It [science?] is a philosophical position, that one will attempt to pursue knowledge through observation.

Apparently you do not think I base my opinions on observation. Seems to me that that's pretty much all I do. You must have noticed that I rarely quote scripture and explicitly draw my conclusions from things about the world that are clearly evident.

Unless you can demonstrate that your eternal truths can benefit us here and now, or that our actions here and now really do matter to something which is eternal, your ideas are going to be ignored as irrelevant to the progress of humanity.

Whether my small contributions to humanity as a whole will have much affect, I don't know. All I know is that I have personally benefited, both emotionally and intellectually, from my relationship with Jesus Christ. I am a better man because of Him and better to those around me. YMMV.

[bennyboy]

It [science?] is a philosophical position, that one will attempt to pursue knowledge through observation.

Apparently you do not think I base my opinions on observation. Seems to me that that's pretty much all I do. You must have noticed that I rarely quote scripture and explicitly draw my conclusions from things about the world that are clearly evident.

To be fair, I'm coming to respect your approach to your ideas, and to communicating about them. That being said, I'm pretty sure that the cart led the horse when it comes to your beliefs-- in other words, you had a religious world view at a younger age, and had the intellectual honesty to abandon some of the more extreme doctrines, and to accept the less controversial non-religious positions.

Unless you can demonstrate that your eternal truths can benefit us here and now, or that our actions here and now really do matter to something which is eternal, your ideas are going to be ignored as irrelevant to the progress of humanity.

Whether my small contributions to humanity as a whole will have much affect, I don't know. All I know is that I have personally benefited, both emotionally and intellectually, from my relationship with Jesus Christ. I am a better man because of Him and better to those around me. YMMV.

I'm perfectly content believing that there is much value in your religious tradition. I've read the Bible many times, and found interesting ideas to think about and inspiring characters to model after. But this doesn't say much about the soul or the extinguishment of consciousness at death.

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

Getting back to the original OP's question. In terms of the universe we are only a bit of a jot in the space/time realty so there is no reason to continue living. I know I am letting myself in for a shit load of trouble but the universe is unconcerned about our lives much less the little blue dot in some obscure corner of the universe.

What will my or anyone elses's life mean when the sun expands and incinerates the earth, not a damn thing. The only meaning we can attribute to life is what we personally decide. Otherwise death is as viable a solution to the meaning of life as living.

Don't get me wrong I am no nihilist, I take great joy in life, always look for new experiences and to learn new things daily if possible. On the other hand death has no interest to me. I am looking forward to at least 150 years before I decided whether to continue or not. If I die before that, big deal.

As for depression, the kind that makes one contemplate taking ones life, I've been there. Would it have been a shame considering my life now, but in terms of the universe nothing.

[Brian37]

I agree that humans have the capacity for awe and a sense of mystery. That much is obvious. The question I have is to what is awe a response and what is our relationship with that sense of mystery. I will also acknowledge that such feelings do not prove much. At the same time, I say that such feelings do legitimize belief in the divine and if an mentally competent believer has reasonably examined various objections and potential defeaters then that belief is warranted.


YMMV. There is always a danger of that in philosophy. At the same time, MK is a special case because his diction is distinctly non-Western. I find myself translating his arguments into terms that more closely correspond to the nomenclature of Western philosophy. For example, when he says “praiseworthy”, I hear “perfection”.


That sounded a bit hyperbolic to me. I often write in a more polemic style to make a point. I will assume you were doing the same.

Many skeptics suggest that believers have failed some epistemic obligation. They wrap this idea with the dubious moral imperative that no one should believe anything without proof as some kind of cognitive obligation. In their opinion, anyone who fails in that moral duty must be either dishonest or indoctrinated or mentally deficient for not adhering to the tenets of classical foundationalism.  It’s text book circular reasoning – claiming that classical foundationalism is true by appealing to classical foundationalism. (and then insulting those who don't agree)

So in the end, Benny, your appeals to Science TM as the only reliable means to arrive at truths stands on feet of clay. There really isn’t any proof that classical foundationalism exhausts all the means by which people can gain knowledge. What if, instead of being the opposite of knowledge, true faith is a special kind of knowledge, in the same category as self-evident principles and incorrigible experiences. Or to see it from another angle, true skepticism has no downward limit and ultimately undermines even classical foundationalism. What if our incorrigible experiences are illusions? What if self-evident propositions are cognitive tricks aimed only at fitness and not truth? At some point a fellow must grant that he has only made an existential choice, completely without appeal to outside principles, about how he goes about understanding the world.

Next I submit to you ( and some of my Christian brothers) that your observations about religion look in the wrong direction. Religion is not a form of inquiry about the natural world. That is indeed the domain of the sciences and the humanities. Religious practice is a way to cultivate a relationship with the divine and truths it reveal do not progress because they are timeless answers to the most primal longings of the human heart.

And your appeals to a relationship with magic pixies for truth has no feet at all in fact no legs ethier

---

Um no, scientific method is a tool, and no, it is not set in clay, it is a process that leads us to new discoveries. It is why we drive cars now instead of riding horses. It is why we got to the moon. It is why we have flu vaccines and make new ones every year, because scientific method teaches the user to go where the evidence leads and adapt to changing data.

Yes it is an appeal, to FACTS and data, but so what. It is not a religion and is not there to cling to the mythologies of antiquity. If it were not for science we'd still be living in the stone age.

There is a huge difference to appealing with reason. logic, and scientific method, and what theists do by saying "my religion has pretty stories in it", yea and so what, they all have pretty stories in them. I can also find pretty stories in Charlotte's Web and Harry Potter without literally believing them to be true.

Science is useful and factual . Religion is useless and stands on nothing but nice sounding fiction

---

Atheism and science are a tireless  bird or cloud able to swore on the winds of evidence

Theism and Religion are a rotting bastion built on dogma , ignorance and stagnation. It's crumbling walls manned by multitudes of apologist and preacher desperately and futiley nailing boards and splashing paint to stave off the rot .Often adding new rooms on cracking foundations and twisting corridors that end no were and might as well not be.

Religion is useless, I agree. But even in saying that most people have one and there is no utopia or pragmatic way you will ever force it out of existence as if one could or should. There are also very empathetic and kind individuals in every single religion bar none. Where all of them go wrong is thinking their religion is the cause of their empathy, when it is evolution doing it.

"atheism" is a word I hate. I know people use it, but once you start adding "ism" to the end of it it sounds like a religion. I never want "off" to be treated like a religion. I don't agree with all atheists all the time. I know Ayn Rand atheists who might be great on social issues like gays and pot smoking, but I hate their "fuck you I got mine" stance that taxes are robbery and only the rich are the job creators. I also don't like other atheists who like Che who lead to Cuba whom think it is one bit possible to rid the world of the private sector. 

Science is neutral, and should be viewed that way, even among atheists. And not every atheist has the same education level regardless. We come from all educational levels and all former religions and all nationalities and skin tones. But the word "atheist" also does not mean an individual atheist will never do bad or harm others. Even atheists are still part of the same evolution and subject to the potential of the same flaws.

[Cyberman]

The -ism suffix relates to the theism component of atheism, to which the negation is the prefix. Neither verb is a religion.