He is risen!

[kentonio]

If the feeling of meaningfulness is not even a motivational tool and just a byproduct of our cognition, then there's even less of a reason to think it connects up with any objective sense of meaning.

Why would it? We're in a wonderous position where we don't have to spend our lives concentrating solely on the bare necessities of survival and species continuation. If we're able to form our own meaning and shape our own future as people and as a species then we're truly fortunate.

[Lorizael]

You're still mistaking the feeling of meaning with meaning itself. Or rather, you're content to act as if the two are the same thing.

[Kidlicious]

Just be polite and say you quit.

[Kidlicious]

I assume that you're grateful to the animals. Is that correct?

[Elok]

No, you went too far with the idea. What people define as purpose is their own business, but when that has a negative effect on other humans then the question becomes how does this help us as a social group or species. Continuation of genetic material is coded into us somehow, because otherwise we wouldn't have the instincts towards children that we do.

You are assuming a lot of oughts without grounds. For example, the interest of the individual in perpetuating society or the species. If there is no transcendent or "objective" goal, then ALL means of self-satisfaction are equally valid from the individual's perspective. I have no means of establishing a true morality, i.e. one that applies regardless of expediency. I can say I should not murder children because it is unproductive, or because it invites reprisal, or because it happens to make me, personally, feel bad (likely due to social programming as a child--it's a bit of a stretch to call that an "instinct," since tribal societies will readily massacre children of their enemies). I cannot say I should not murder children, full stop. You could make the case that, under certain circumstances, I should murder children, such as if someone will pay me a large amount of money for it. That's assuming self-interest as a basic good, but self-interest is the only permanent good left once you've eliminated the transcendent.

[Kidlicious]

You don't believe anything objectively without believing it subjectively. You're talking about what you think people should believe. There's a big difference. You can't should people into actually believing things, although most of them will talk as though they believe it.

[ricketyclik]

In a reverse entropy system like ours, where there is a constant energy input from the sun, ever more organised and complex structures arise. Humans have developed an acute ability to imagine, probably our defining survival strategy. It's only natural that this two-edged sword will give rise to religious beliefs and other mental illnesses.

[Aeson]

You are assuming a lot of oughts without grounds. For example, the interest of the individual in perpetuating society or the species. If there is no transcendent or "objective" goal, then ALL means of self-satisfaction are equally valid from the individual's perspective. I have no means of establishing a true morality, i.e. one that applies regardless of expediency. I can say I should not murder children because it is unproductive, or because it invites reprisal, or because it happens to make me, personally, feel bad (likely due to social programming as a child--it's a bit of a stretch to call that an "instinct," since tribal societies will readily massacre children of their enemies). I cannot say I should not murder children, full stop. You could make the case that, under certain circumstances, I should murder children, such as if someone will pay me a large amount of money for it. That's assuming self-interest as a basic good, but self-interest is the only permanent good left once you've eliminated the transcendent.

You end up with a type of utilitarian "ought" because we do have desires, and other people can influence our outcomes. What form of utilitarian "ought" you come up with is how you understand those interactions and what your desires are. In the case of someone who wants to kill children for whatever reason, they have to take into account the likelihood that they will get caught by those who don't want children being killed, and punished for it.

This is actually no different than in the case where you assume a higher power. It's just by assuming a higher power your evaluations are modified because of it. (Not necessarily positively ... see holy wars, inquisition, fatwahs, etc)

[ricketyclik]

To finish off my train of thought above, I'm very comfortable with life being an end unto itself. It is indeed majestic.

[Kidlicious]

To finish off my train of thought above, I'm very comfortable with life being an end unto itself. It is indeed majestic.

If it's so good why do you want it to end?

[ricketyclik]

My wanting doesn't come into it. It just does. But not if one conceives of oneself as part of the life continuum, which I do

[C0ckney]

i find this discussion of higher purpose a little strange. partly because i see religion as a conversation started by man about man and its place in the world. the ancients were somewhat clearer about this, giving their diverse gods human features and frailties, and having them as contemporaries of their heroes and ancestors to their kings. advances in god technology combined all these gods into one and made him perfect (in the case of the abrahamic religions), yet the conversation is still the same at its core, using the divine to explain and explore the profane.

i also find the dichotomy presented here between the 'higher purpose' of god and that of finding some atomised individual 'meaning' rather false. we do not live as individuals, though we often like to think we do, but rather we live in families, in communities, and in the local societies that we are both defined by and define. we are at heart a social animal and if we are to search for 'meaning' then it is surely here that we must search for it. to me at least the religious view, being a conversation about man and its place in the world, differs little from that.

[Kidlicious]

My wanting doesn't come into it. It just does. But not if one conceives of oneself as part of the life continuum, which I do

Life continuum? What does that mean? You have faith that life will go on for eternity?

But an individual life you don't care about? That is if it ends? But you care about this life continuum thingy?

I'm asking because you appear to be double-minded. And I find it funny when double-minded people insult other people's mental state.

[ricketyclik]

Yes, I know, it's confusing isn't it, the individual versus the collective? I know that Americans in particular struggle with the concept.

[Kidlicious]

i find this discussion of higher purpose a little strange. partly because i see religion as a conversation started by man about man and its place in the world. the ancients were somewhat clearer about this, giving their diverse gods human features and frailties, and having them as contemporaries of their heroes and ancestors to their kings. advances in god technology combined all these gods into one and made him perfect (in the case of the abrahamic religions), yet the conversation is still the same at its core, using the divine to explain and explore the profane.

i also find the dichotomy presented here between the 'higher purpose' of god and that of finding some atomised individual 'meaning' rather false. we do not live as individuals, though we often like to think we do, but rather we live in families, in communities, and in the local societies that we are both defined by and define. we are at heart a social animal and if we are to search for 'meaning' then it is surely here that we must search for it. to me at least the religious view, being a conversation about man and its place in the world, differs little from that.

So what you're saying is that we should believe whatever you tell us to believe, not what we believe?