The Problem of a Missing Motive

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Our experiences in this life stay with us going forward in the next life.

How is that relevant to what you said, "If ... there is no life beyond death then there would be no recollection of experience, no wisdom." ?

We can pass on our knowledge, wisdom, and recollection of experiences to subsequent generations whether or not there is life after death.

 

[Colter]

How is that relevant to what you said, "If ... there is no life beyond death then there would be no recollection of experience, no wisdom." ?

We can pass on our knowledge, wisdom, and recollection of experiences to subsequent generations whether or not there is life after death.

That's true, we can and do pass on a lot of things to subsequent generations. I assumed people would understand that I was talking about the dead individual, there is no life beyond death then there would be no recollection of experience, no wisdom.....for the self that is terminated by death and the election not to survive.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I assumed people would understand that I was talking about the dead individual, there is no life beyond death then there would be no recollection of experience, no wisdom.....for the self that is terminated by death and the election not to survive.

OIC; that's trivially obvious - when you're dead, it is the end of self, you're dead.

 

[Colter]

OIC; that's trivially obvious - when you're dead, it is the end of self, you're dead.

So going back, for the Atheist philosophy of a godless universe and no survival of the self, life experience is ultimately meaningless for the dead individual. And since all subsiquent individuals are extinguished by death, it's all rather pointless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So going back, for the Atheist philosophy of a godless universe and no survival of the self, life experience is ultimately meaningless for the dead individual. And since all subsiquent individuals are extinguished by death, it's all rather pointless.

Everything is meaningless for a dead individual, they're dead; and the universe is intrinsically pointless and meaningless. Welcome to reality; meaning is something we impose upon the experiential world.

You'll notice that other creatures have no problem with the intrinsic meaninglessness of the universe - they just get on with it, following the drives evolution has provided.

You'll also notice that people who don't believe in an afterlife have no problem with the intrinsic meaninglessness of the universe. Humans have evolved the same basic drives as other animals - with a few refinements - and we sublimate them into our own interpretations of meaning.

 

[Colter]

Everything is meaningless for a dead individual, they're dead; and the universe is intrinsically pointless and meaningless. Welcome to reality; meaning is something we impose upon the experiential world.

You'll notice that other creatures have no problem with the intrinsic meaninglessness of the universe - they just get on with it, following the drives evolution has provided.

You'll also notice that people who don't believe in an afterlife have no problem with the intrinsic meaninglessness of the universe. Humans have evolved the same basic drives as other animals - with a few refinements - and we sublimate them into our own interpretations of meaning.

When man becomes spirit born on his spiritual birthday, a whole new reality opens to him or her. Their eyes are anointed to the transcendent reality of God consciousness. But I agree, not every acorn becomes a tree. It appears that the evolutionary, animal origin, self defence mechanism becomes over developed in the ego of materialist leading to a dedication to Godless idealism. The doctrines of doubt are established as a philosophy of life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It appears that the evolutionary, animal origin, self defence mechanism becomes over developed in the ego of materialist leading to a dedication to Godless idealism. The doctrines of doubt are established as a philosophy of life.

For most atheists I know, who grew up in atheist families, it's not a question of doubt or dedication at all - religion simply plays no role in their lives. They just don't think about it day to day unless it's drawn to their attention.

To them God is part of a bundle of odd beliefs that people who belong to various religious groups have; only a minority of atheists I encounter think about it in the definite terms of a positive disbelief in gods and religious beliefs. I suspect that many of these were, like me, raised in religious backgrounds from which they grew apart.

 

[quatona]

for the Atheist philosophy of a godless universe

 

[FireDragon76]

It's a lovely sentiment, but it's a vanity. We ALL have kids because we're programmed to reproduce. There is a biological imperative to continue our species. Insects do it. Fish do it. Plants do it. Our species simply adds a layer of meaning because we think about it more. The perils of being a smart ape!

You are making a lot of basic philosophical errors. One is called "scientism". Instead of listening to peoples own experiences on why they want to live and have kids, you substitute the scientific explanation and assume it is absolute. This is rather immature and a good way to shut down conversations.

People are not all programmed by evolution, that's a fundamental misunderstanding, and few biologists would agree that's a good interpretation of evolution except perhaps in a metaphorical way. People have powers of reason and self-determination (free will) - if they don't then trying to argue anything would be rather pointless. Clearly you don't believe that yourself, or you wouldn't be trying to argue a point on a message board. So try to be more consistent.

Species are conceptual realities, meaning we can't know for sure if they exist outside individual minds. I would tend to say, probably not. The definition of which organisms are and are not part of the same species has changed over my own lifetime even. The classification of organisms is not some kind of absolute truth, so arguing based on the survival of species is itself problematic because we don't have firm boundaries over what is absolutely a species.

 

[Locutus]

You are making a lot of basic philosophical errors. One is called "scientism". Instead of listening to peoples own experiences on why they want to live and have kids, you substitute the scientific explanation and assume it is absolute. This is rather immature and a good way to shut down conversations.

People are not all programmed by evolution, that's a fundamental misunderstanding, and few biologists would agree that's a good interpretation of evolution except perhaps in a metaphorical way. People have powers of reason and self-determination (free will) - if they don't then trying to argue anything would be rather pointless. Clearly you don't believe that yourself, or you wouldn't be trying to argue a point on a message board. So try to be more consistent.

Species are conceptual realities, meaning we can't know for sure if they exist outside individual minds. I would tend to say, probably not. The definition of which organisms are and are not part of the same species has changed over my own lifetime even. The classification of organisms is not some kind of absolute truth, so arguing based on the survival of species is itself problematic because we don't have firm boundaries over what is absolutely a species.

Which all reads as one long parry against the idea that we're critters, doing what we need to do to survive. I understand religious people are compelled to resist the idea, so I'm not surprised or offended by your parry.

Still, our personal attribution of meaning to the process of procreation is what it is. A personal attribution of meaning - where there is none. It's not dissimilar to the demand for an explanation (the pointless 'why'). And I'm not immune ... far from it. The difference is I recognise that it's vanity, and don't indulge the further vanity of pretending it isn't.

 

[Locutus]

For most atheists I know, who grew up in atheist families, it's not a question of doubt or dedication at all - religion simply plays no role in their lives. They just don't think about it day to day unless it's drawn to their attention.
.

I can vouch for this. I was raised sans religion, and it didn't really enter my thoughts until I was in my 20s - when I spent some time 'trying to believe', but failing . Later still, I became aware of the active hostility to non-belief in the broader community, and it was that which brought me to where I am today.

 

[Colter]

For most atheists I know, who grew up in atheist families, it's not a question of doubt or dedication at all - religion simply plays no role in their lives. They just don't think about it day to day unless it's drawn to their attention.

To them God is part of a bundle of odd beliefs that people who belong to various religious groups have; only a minority of atheists I encounter think about it in the definite terms of a positive disbelief in gods and religious beliefs. I suspect that many of these were, like me, raised in religious backgrounds from which they grew apart.

Sounds reasonable, on the surface, and I do think their are neutral atheist who don't care and just want to be left alone. But if I were a neutral atheist I cant envision accidently joining a Christian Forum and inadvertently posting 1,100+ times seemingly promoting belief in a Godless universe while simultaneously being horribly misunderstood.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...if I were a neutral atheist I cant envision accidently joining a Christian Forum and inadvertently posting 1,100+ times seemingly promoting belief in a Godless universe while simultaneously being horribly misunderstood.

Me neither; I'd be surprised if any do.

 

[zippy2006]

You'll notice that other creatures have no problem with the intrinsic meaninglessness of the universe - they just get on with it, following the drives evolution has provided.

That's a bit like saying that fish have no shame about their inability to correctly compute math problems as a way of justifying a poor grade. Rather than explain the equivocation between a privation and an absence, I'll just let Lewis say it better:

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

You'll also notice that people who don't believe in an afterlife have no problem with the intrinsic meaninglessness of the universe.

Well either they do or they don't. I happen to think they do have a problem with it, but just haven't quite admitted it to themselves. In any case, it is generally hard to get atheists to shut up about how 'intrinsically meaningful' their life is absent religion, so one has to wonder if your premises are even plausible. The commoner atheistic approach seems to be insisting on meaning apart from religion rather than abandoning it altogether.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's a bit like saying that fish have no shame about their inability to correctly compute math problems as a way of justifying a poor grade. Rather than explain the equivocation between a privation and an absence, I'll just let Lewis say it better:





Well either they do or they don't. I happen to think they do have a problem with it, but just haven't quite admitted it to themselves. In any case, it is generally hard to get atheists to shut up about how 'intrinsically meaningful' their life is absent religion, so one has to wonder if your premises are even plausible. The commoner atheistic approach seems to be insisting on meaning apart from religion rather than abandoning it altogether.

Lewis made a mistake:

If Lewis expected atheism to provide an account for meaning, morality, and the motions of the planets, then he was always destined to be disappointed. As a response to a singular question (the existence of deities), atheism isn't equipped to provide any of that; it isn't a "worldview" on meaning, morality, or anything else. Consequently, Lewis was only half-right. Atheism is simple, but not "too simple."

This is not an uncommon error among those who are religious: they assume that atheism must answer all the same questions that their religion purports to answer. In other words, they expect atheism to behave like a religion; they are seeking doctrinal answers and are disappointed when they find none in atheism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's a bit like saying that fish have no shame about their inability to correctly compute math problems as a way of justifying a poor grade.

No, I don't think so. The point is that most people, most of the time, give little thought to meaning in their lives; they just get on with life - their jobs, hobbies, families, friends, etc. If you ask them, they'll be able to conceptualise it and say these things give their life meaning, but it's just a way of saying these things are important to them. Meaning is something we impose on, or derive from, our world, not something intrinsic in it that we recognise.

Well either they do or they don't. I happen to think they do have a problem with it, but just haven't quite admitted it to themselves.

In any case, it is generally hard to get atheists to shut up about how 'intrinsically meaningful' their life is absent religion, so one has to wonder if your premises are even plausible. The commoner atheistic approach seems to be insisting on meaning apart from religion rather than abandoning it altogether.

I'm not saying people 'abandon' meaning, but that they find meaning in their lives without supernatural beliefs.

It sounds like you're making false generalisations from a small and unrepresentative sample. Or perhaps you're projecting a sense of threat from the idea that people can be quite comfortable and find meaning in life without supernatural beliefs

 

[zippy2006]

No, I don't think so. The point is that most people, most of the time, give little thought to meaning in their lives; they just get on with life - their jobs, hobbies, families, friends, etc.

And yet most people, some of the time, give a great deal of thought to meaning in their lives. Fish on the other hand...

I'm not saying people 'abandon' meaning, but that they find meaning in their lives without supernatural beliefs.

More than that, you seem to believe that people find meaning despite a belief that "the universe is intrinsically pointless and meaningless." That is not at all obvious, and meaning in this case seems to be either a kind of pleasure or else something like the meaning entailed in the definition of a word. Either way it's small fries.

 

[zippy2006]

The question in short:
Why would a non-material/non-physical (entirely "spiritual") being create a material/physical world when the actual goal (that which it is all about) is again a "spiritual" state of affairs?

Have you ever heard of the Apostles' Creed?

I believe in ... the resurrection of the body.

990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality. The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.

991 Belief in the resurrection of the dead has been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings. "The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live" (Tertullian, De res. 1,1: PL 2,841).

(Note this this would have been an ideal topic for the Christian Apologetics Forum, and is technically against the rules here.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you seem to believe that people find meaning despite a belief that "the universe is intrinsically pointless and meaningless."

I don't know if they have that belief. I suspect that most don't have a belief that that the universe has intrinsic meaning, but you'd have to ask them.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't know if they have that belief. I suspect that most don't have a belief that that the universe has intrinsic meaning, but you'd have to ask them.

But this is the philosophy forum, not the survey forum. My point is that you seem to hold a strange compatibility between believing one's life is meaningful and believing that the entire universe is intrinsically meaningless and pointless.