He is risen!

[kentonio]

Or you could go really out there and think that if all matter in universe came from a single point, and will one day return to one, then we're all just parts of a giant cosmic cycle where we are forever parts of the same whole.

[dannubis]

But what about the split second "before" the singularity ?

I am actually wairing sunglasses right now...

[kentonio]

But what about the split second "before" the singularity ?

I am actually wairing sunglasses right now...

If the universe is just a giant pulsing heartbeat, then the split second before would be the last moment of all matter returning to its centre.

[I AM MOBIUS]

This... about 7 billion times.

Unfortunately it's only about 1,169,280,000

Probably a lot less than that too.

[dannubis]

Hopefully still growing...

[Lorizael]

It's not justification, it's explanation.

What I'm getting at is that people want justification, not explanation. People want to believe they have reasons for being moral other than a cold mental calculus of what sates their desires (including possibly altruism). So what is and what people believe are at odds, but this doesn't stop people from believing in things like justice and community and all that jazz, when those things might be no more than roughly shared desires.

No, I'm saying that meaning itself doesn't exist ... What meaning we construct is for our own personal mission to make our all too brief existences as fulfilling as we can.

Strictly speaking, these two statements are logically incompatible. They're not, though, which more or less proves my point. You're content to act as if meaning and the feeling of meaning (which is what you get when you construct your own meaning) are the same thing. I am not content to act in such a way. You think that's sad; I don't. My life's goal is to find meaning, but I don't pretend that my goal is important or meaningful. It's simply what I've decided to do to stave off nihilism, and there's the added benefit that if I succeed, doing meaningful things may be possible.

On a wider point though, I just don't recognize your point about how without some greater goal suddenly all behaviour suddenly becomes fine. I actually find it pretty bizarre and disturbing. So without a god in your life you'd suddenly be running around murdering people and helping yourself to anything you wanted? I don't have one, and I've never felt any desire to do any of those things.

I've addressed this before, and I really get tired of seeing this argument. Everyone who refrains from bad behavior (without fear of immediate punishment) does so because their sense of right and wrong tells them to refrain. This often manifests itself as revulsion. You probably shudder at the thought of decapitating and skull****ing pre-pubescent, handicapped children. Most people do, probably even Elok! The difference is the ultimate source of revulsion for religious folks is their religion (because God imbued them with a sense of morality, perhaps), whereas for non-religious folks, this revulsion comes from something like "common decency" or what have you.

Elok's point is not that the absence of religion will sudden cause religious people to become evil psychopaths, but that the one reason for that sense of revulsion he believes is legitimate will disappear. That is, he (and I, and others) doesn't think things like "common decency" and "because that's clearly wrong, you psycho" are good justifications for that revulsion, because without a higher authority there is no meaning, which means there can be no meaning behind the revulsion (that isn't simply an evolutionarily programmed response).

(I might be making my own point and not yours, Elok. Tell me so if that's the case.)

[ricketyclik]

Lori and Elok: It is entirely logical to treat others as you would have them treat you.

[I AM MOBIUS]

I think religious people need to lighten up a little and let their hair down.

Lori, your problem is that you think too much about pointless, or even detrimental things. In fact, I may even go so far as to suggest that a large number of the problems you're currently suffering, are from a general lack of self-worth because you're finding yourself failing to attain whatever artificial 'higher purpose' you have set yourself.

Just stop and go out and get laid. Everything is better when you get laid.

[Lorizael]

I enjoy thinking about this kind of stuff.

[kentonio]

Strictly speaking, these two statements are logically incompatible. They're not, though, which more or less proves my point. You're content to act as if meaning and the feeling of meaning (which is what you get when you construct your own meaning) are the same thing. I am not content to act in such a way. You think that's sad; I don't. My life's goal is to find meaning, but I don't pretend that my goal is important or meaningful. It's simply what I've decided to do to stave off nihilism, and there's the added benefit that if I succeed, doing meaningful things may be possible.

If you want to spend your life doing that, then obviously that's your right and privilege and I wish you well with it. I do find it sad though, as it could just be one aspect of a much broader and richer experience. It's certainly not my place to judge though, each person has to find their own happiness.

I've addressed this before, and I really get tired of seeing this argument. Everyone who refrains from bad behavior (without fear of immediate punishment) does so because their sense of right and wrong tells them to refrain. This often manifests itself as revulsion. You probably shudder at the thought of decapitating and skull****ing pre-pubescent, handicapped children. Most people do, probably even Elok! The difference is the ultimate source of revulsion for religious folks is their religion (because God imbued them with a sense of morality, perhaps), whereas for non-religious folks, this revulsion comes from something like "common decency" or what have you.

Elok's point is not that the absence of religion will sudden cause religious people to become evil psychopaths, but that the one reason for that sense of revulsion he believes is legitimate will disappear. That is, he (and I, and others) doesn't think things like "common decency" and "because that's clearly wrong, you psycho" are good justifications for that revulsion, because without a higher authority there is no meaning, which means there can be no meaning behind the revulsion (that isn't simply an evolutionarily programmed response).

(I might be making my own point and not yours, Elok. Tell me so if that's the case.)

Why is an evolutionarily programmed response not good enough? Everything about us is evolutionarily programmed, yet for this one thing we suddenly need something greater?

[I AM MOBIUS]

I enjoy thinking about this kind of stuff.

Why? Seems like a total waste of time to me. Especially when you get to the inevitable conclusion that there is no divine being, or beings.

Me, I prefer indulging in my evolutionarily programmed responses...

[Jon Miller]

In the last couple of years I have started enjoying blogs. I just realised Elok had a blog yesterday (and it has some good entries, I recommend that others read it).

I started reading http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/ because of the economic content but the religion content is pretty good too (the writer is a former mormon now atheist unitarian universalist). Some recent posts

http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/111729840671/the-teleotheistic-achievement-of-the-new-testament

http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/po...onstruction-of (a guest blog from a still religious friend)
http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/po...believe-in-god (Noah Smith, who also writes about religion here)

http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/56663457380/godless-religion

(Among other things, he studies Happiness from the Economics perspective)

While I disagree with his positions, it is interesting to hear his position (more interesting than the positions of most atheists who I talk to) and so I thought I would contribute that here.

JM

[Lorizael]

If you want to spend your life doing that, then obviously that's your right and privilege and I wish you well with it. I do find it sad though, as it could just be one aspect of a much broader and richer experience. It's certainly not my place to judge though, each person has to find their own happiness.

There's plenty else I do to stave off nihilism. See all my whiny posts about how I haven't had sex recently.

Why is an evolutionarily programmed response not good enough? Everything about us is evolutionarily programmed, yet for this one thing we suddenly need something greater?

No, I don't think evolutionary responses are sufficient reasons in other cases, either. Meaning and morality just happen to be the topics of conversation today.

Why? Seems like a total waste of time to me. Especially when you get to the inevitable conclusion that there is no divine being, or beings.

Me, I prefer indulging in my evolutionarily programmed responses...

The "conclusion" that there are no divine beings is not the end for me. See my universe-consuming cult for more details.

[DaShi]

If the universe is just a giant pulsing heartbeat, then the split second before would be the last moment of all matter returning to its centre.

I think the latest evidence is that this isn't the case. It's been a while, so I could be wrong, but the universe isn't expected to collapse in on itself.

[Aeson]

What I'm getting at is that people want justification, not explanation. People want to believe they have reasons for being moral other than a cold mental calculus of what sates their desires (including possibly altruism). So what is and what people believe are at odds, but this doesn't stop people from believing in things like justice and community and all that jazz, when those things might be no more than roughly shared desires.

I agree with that in general. Though in the specific case which I responded to, Elok was talking about someone who stripped away that justification. At that point you're left with the mental calculus, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. (At least not mny more or less so than having the moral authority. Both moral and amoral justifications can be used for "good" or "bad" ends.)