Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Justtristo]

I will make my only post of substance on this thread.

To me the finite length of our existence gives it it's meaning. The Romans summed up this very nicely in the phrase Carpe diem. Nobody if they given it deep thought would want to live forever, you would get bored after say a million years. Because there is no end to it.

After reading and thinking about morality, it is a totally natural phenomenon like everything else. In recent years there has been lots of research done by evolutionary psychologists which discuss about the development of morality. I would heartily recommend to read either The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker or The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.

Let me starting by stating that animals exhibit altruistic behavior to varying degree. Some species such as Elephants and Chimpanzees have very complex altruistic behavior which is same as observed in humans. As humans evolved in hunter gatherer bands. Hence humans have inbuilt altruistic behavior towards family and 'friends' which was everybody in these hunter gatherer bands.

Then with the invention of agriculture and development of civilizations forced people to develop ways of justifying altruistic behavior towards larger groups of people. Because without it these societies would collapse. It is no accident that similar philosophical developments occurred around the same time during the axial age across Eurasia. Wither it was the Greek Philosophers, Jewish prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, The Buddha, Confucius and Lao Tzu.

The conclusion when it comes to morality at least now is contradictory. While I would deny 'objective morality'. However I do believe there is a 'natural morality'.

[dqualk]

To me the finite length of our existence gives it it's meaning. The Romans summed up this very nicely in the phrase Carpe diem. Nobody if they given it deep thought would want to live forever, you would get bored after say a million years. Because there is no end to it.

I disagree. Also, in my belief God is an infinite being, and therefore we wil be eternally learning and experiencing Him with each other. Sieze the day!

After reading and thinking about morality, it is a totally natural phenomenon like everything else. In recent years there has been lots of research done by evolutionary psychologists which discuss about the development of morality. I would heartily recommend to read either The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker or The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.

I shall keep it in mind. Currently I am reading a lot of stuff, as the start of anew semester has begun, but I'm sure I'll get to it at some point, as I have an interest in morality.

Let me starting by stating that animals exhibit altruistic behavior to varying degree. Some species such as Elephants and Chimpanzees have very complex altruistic behavior which is same as observed in humans. As humans evolved in hunter gatherer bands. Hence humans have inbuilt altruistic behavior towards family and 'friends' which was everybody in these hunter gatherer bands.

Then with the invention of agriculture and development of civilizations forced people to develop ways of justifying altruistic behavior towards larger groups of people. Because without it these societies would collapse. It is no accident that similar philosophical developments occurred around the same time during the axial age across Eurasia. Wither it was the Greek Philosophers, Jewish prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, The Buddha, Confucius and Lao Tzu.

The conclusion when it comes to morality at least now is contradictory. While I would deny 'objective morality'. However I do believe there is a 'natural morality'.

Well put. I like the natural morality. I believe in a natural morality as well, but I also believe that they are based on objective principles. That is I believe that in some situations what is right and wrong is at least in part subjective. So what is right for one is not necessarily what is right for another in every situation, but this is the case in some situations. I am an ethical naturalist.

[OnlyNatural]

I believe in a natural morality as well, but I also believe that they are based on objective principles. That is I believe that in some situations what is right and wrong is at least in part subjective. So what is right for one is not necessarily what is right for another in every situation, but this is the case in some situations. I am an ethical naturalist.

Ethical naturalism...suggests that inquiry into the natural world can increase our moral knowledge in just the same way it increases our scientific knowledge. Indeed, proponents of ethical naturalism have argued that humanity needs to invest in their science of morality.

Interesting. I'm fascinated by the origins of morality too. But don't you believe that morality comes from God? If moral values, principles, and behaviours can evolve and exist naturally, and be explained scientifically, then where is the need for God?

[Captain Scarlet]

I disagree. Also, in my belief God is an infinite being, and therefore we wil be eternally learning and experiencing Him with each other. Sieze the day!

If you beleive in a god that is infinite, then he does not exist. Actual infinities cannot be instatntiated (see Hilberts Hotel). You may want to re-assess your belief, if you really believe this. Theists get round this by using terms like maximal etc. Which means "really, really, really etc big/great [fill the blanks in here]"; but it is just a form of weasel words to save the god concept. In other words meaningless.

This leaves it hards for theists and atheists alike to prove or disprove god; because there is no definitive definition of what a god really is, which omnis they possess, changeless or not, timeless or not, loving or not, caring or not, merciful or not, judgemental or not, communicative or not...the list goes on. Its all too wooly and I'm afraid theists have the burden to define then prove as atheists do not make the claim.

Well put. I like the natural morality. I believe in a natural morality as well, but I also believe that they are based on objective principles. That is I believe that in some situations what is right and wrong is at least in part subjective. So what is right for one is not necessarily what is right for another in every situation, but this is the case in some situations. I am an ethical naturalist.

This is an unfounded belief. Objective morality cannot be arrived at evidentially nor logically. Why would you believe in such a concept, if it wasn't becuase you wanted to?

[Autumnlicious]

I refuse to look at it on the grounds that 1) I might add to it and 2) I objectify women all the time...otherwise I wouldn't watch Kate Beckinsale (in Underworld) in the dark. Ahem.

The way is shut. It was closed by admins who are red. And thread is dead.

[thesummerqueen]

The way is shut. It was closed by admins who are red. And thread is dead.

That was hot. Do that more often.

[dqualk]

Interesting. I'm fascinated by the origins of morality too. But don't you believe that morality comes from God? If moral values, principles, and behaviours can evolve and exist naturally, and be explained scientifically, then where is the need for God?

I believe that God typically works through contingent means. To me it is a more beautiful demonstration of His power that He can create through contingent means. However, I believe God guides the contingent means so that His purpose is fulfilled. So I do believe that the chance of the universe, Earth, and life forming naturally is a 1 in a trillion zillion zillion chance (basically mathmatecally impossible) however, I believe God guided the universe so that it would always just happen to his that lucky number so to speak. Its like God pre set the deck and then let the game of cards unfold naturally. However, I do beleive that God interferes at some points with certain individuals to set man straight and better define what we were coming close to hitting, and sometimes missing by far. Like perhaps with Moses, and of course with Jesus. I also believe that he may have allowed for supernatural menas to influence other cultures like Hindu cultures and Buddhist cultures and other native cultures. DISCLAIMER: This is not an arguement, this is just what I believe concerning God and morality. I don't mind if people want to be critical about certain points that I make, but don't say that I am committing some fallacy "within my arugment" becaues I am not making an arguement.

With that said I beleive that ultimately all reality flows from God. However, when I throw a rock God does not necessarily throw it as the primary actor, but that is not a way of me denying God's soverignty over my actions.

@ cpt scar

If you beleive in a god that is infinite, then he does not exist. Actual infinities cannot be instatntiated (see Hilberts Hotel). You may want to re-assess your belief, if you really believe this. Theists get round this by using terms like maximal etc. Which means "really, really, really etc big/great [fill the blanks in here]"; but it is just a form of weasel words to save the god concept. In other words meaningless.

This leaves it hards for theists and atheists alike to prove or disprove god; because there is no definitive definition of what a god really is, which omnis they possess, changeless or not, timeless or not, loving or not, caring or not, merciful or not, judgemental or not, communicative or not...the list goes on. Its all too wooly and I'm afraid theists have the burden to define then prove as atheists do not make the claim.

Thats funny because I've been reading Tillich and aparrently he says God is so great that He does not exist, as existance is a property and God is Divinely Simple or something like this. Its all very weird to me.

But I do believe that God is infinite. And I do beleive that that does not make sense from a temporal point of view. I beleive in Revelation. Which means God reveals things to man that we could not have known for certain by the light of reason alone. I believe reason has her limits. This is why I believe that it is natural that man should be a creature of Faith and Reason. Which is what the Church teaches us. We have to have faith in something, or else we are a coward who never advances things forward, I suppose you could assume something is true for the sake of moving somethign forward without actually believing in it whole heartedly, but you still had to rely on some measure of faith. For example, you have to beleive even if not whole heartedly, that there is a truth in order to look for it, and make certain statements like matter exists, our senses are trustworthy and so on.

I believe that Jesus does reveal truth to us through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which I believe is the Church led by the successor of Peter in Rome. Commonly known as the Catholic Church.

However, I do appreciate your exceptionally high view of reason, it reminds me of Bertrand Russel, he is hilarious. It is admirable. I for one beleive that reason is perfectly sufficient in understanding the temporal realm, but I do believe that there is an infinite realm that superceded the temporal and does not behave by the same rules so to speak. I do not expect you to beleive this and I do not have a good argument other than God exists becasue intrinsic value does. I'm sure there is some philosopher some where that really went in knee deep in the issue but I cant think of any.

My beliefs have come from this progression, there is intrinsic value, there must be a God, God must have created me to be free and loving, Jesus meets all of my metaphysical problems with His Gospel, the Gospel must be protected and passed down perfectly by something, this thing must be the Church. As you can see it gets more and more complicated as you go down and the arguements change a lot as you get to belief in the Church. So it would take many threads to argue each of the reasons that I came to each conclusion in sequence.

With that said I believe the Holy Spirit (God) is soverign over the entire process, and I believe that it is perfectly natural and ok to begin at the end and not have to go from beginning to end. That is just a natural progression that could be made.

Typically Protestants could follow this same route but they will say that the Gospel is protected by the Bible. My thoughts were that the Bible was created by the Church, and the same men who told us that the Bible is without error are the same men who have authoritry to teach on other issues.

[/quote]
This is an unfounded belief. Objective morality cannot be arrived at evidentially nor logically. Why would you believe in such a concept, if it wasn't becuase you wanted to? [/quote]

I agree with you. And if this is why you do not believe then I respect your conclusion, as it is a valid one. I believe in it because I believe in objective morality and thus intrinsic value more than I believe in my senses or my reason. I understand that it could just be a wish fulfillment, but it could also be a design that leads us to believe in "deeper and more profound truths."

[Captain Scarlet]

Thats funny because I've been reading Tillich and aparrently he says God is so great that He does not exist, as existance is a property and God is Divinely Simple or something like this. Its all very weird to me.

I agree to an extent Tillichs statement is weird, but also illogical and bankrupt. If "God is so great it precludes his existence" means anything, it means God does not exist. Thus it is self refuting. It seems like yet another form of words to describe something that does not exist.

Thus we are back at the same place, unless theists sit down and agree what defines god we are arguing over "vapourware".

[Ryft]

I agree to an extent that Tillich's statement is weird, but also illogical and bankrupt. If "God is so great it precludes his existence" means anything, it means God does not exist. Thus it is self refuting. It seems like yet another form of words to describe something that does not exist.

You need to keep three things in mind: (1) this was dqualk recounting what Tillich said; (2) Tillich was an articulate thinker; (3) dqualk is not. Before disparaging Tillich's ideas, I would suggest second-guessing the accuracy of dqualk's recounting.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah but any good myth/story should hit on truths ( I mean that in the absolute sense)

That's irrelevant to the fact that imaginary meaning is still meaning.

---

Actually, it absolutely is an apt analogy.

I love alliteration.

Me too!!

How exactly does it add meaning to one's life if it is meaningless by nature?

If it feels meaningful despite the fact there is no objective meaning... who gives a shit?

Because it is not harmless at all to think of oneself as meaningless.

It certainly can be. It's all subjective. It depends how you react to that belief.

And, in fact, to think of oneself as overly meaningful or too important, I would argue, is more likely to be harmful.

Nor is it harmless to think of oneself as meaningful.

It certainly can be. It's all subjective. It depends how you react to that belief.

Our own sense of meaning defines who we are, and affects how we impact the world. Imagine that someone, somewhere out there is meant to make a huge difference in the world by doing something incredible.

If he believes he is meant to that will effect his behaviour whether there's really any objective meaning or not. Hence why objective meaning is........... COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!!!

But they don't believe in any true meaning.

We're discussing objective meaning, not belief in objective meaning, right?

I'm perfectly willing to accept you BELIEVE in objective meaning and that that belief can influence your life......... but that's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to actually having objective meaning. Merely believing can just be a placebo. Which is my entire point about subjective meaning being able to be meaningful - it works like a placebo.


FOR FUCKS SAKE. I'll just draw the analogy with humour again: Something is funny merely because you believe it is. It's merely the placebo effect. Is that meaningless? Well objectively it is but who gives a shit? It may be meaningless but it's not useless.... humour can be used to bring a lot of pleasure to our lives.

They wont seek their own self-meaning and may miss the chance to make the impact they were supposed to. Sure, they may stumble across it by accident; but will they then be prepared for what they are meant to do?

Once again......... that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether objective meaning actually exists. People will seek self-meaning just as much if they wrongfully believe in objective meaning as if they rightfully believe in objective meaning.