Atheism and meaning

[Shaker]

Don't you mean anti-theistic Stalinism, Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't you mean anti-theistic Stalinism, Vlad?

That as well, Shakes.

[Shaker]

Thought so 

[Outrider]

No, I'm happy with the question ''Is there a purpose to life?'.

Your discomfort at this question is evidenced by you dishonestly describing the question as an assumption that there is a purpose to life. The idea is enough for the question to be legitimately asked.

That would be the point where you beg the question 'is there purpose to life' in your question 'So the meaning of life is found in the library" - that's not my dishonesty (nice ad hominem, by the way) but the implication of your phrasing. The idea might be enough for the question to be asked for you, but unless you demonstrate there's a reason to presume there is an underlying reason I can keep pointing out that you're question begging.

That you wish to prevent it being asked is intellectual totalitarianism on your part.

Yeah, my pointing out your unwarranted assumptions is 'intellectual totalitarianism'... is that the new 'philosophical naturalism'?

O.

[Jack Knave]

No, I'm happy with the question ''Is there a purpose to life?'.

Your discomfort at this question is evidenced by you dishonestly describing the question as an assumption that there is a purpose to life. The idea is enough for the question to be legitimately asked.

That would be the point where you beg the question 'is there purpose to life' in your question 'So the meaning of life is found in the library" - that's not my dishonesty (nice ad hominem, by the way) but the implication of your phrasing. The idea might be enough for the question to be asked for you, but unless you demonstrate there's a reason to presume there is an underlying reason I can keep pointing out that you're question begging.

That you wish to prevent it being asked is intellectual totalitarianism on your part.

Yeah, my pointing out your unwarranted assumptions is 'intellectual totalitarianism'... is that the new 'philosophical naturalism'?

O.

The question is a legitimate one because we humans naturally create a narrative for ourselves to engage our being into the community in which we live, and to do this our society and culture has to be given some form of 'solid' meaning and foundation, some ultimate clarity and form, and therefore, purpose.

The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.

And also, what do we mean by purpose or meaning?

[Leonard James]

The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.

And also, what do we mean by purpose or meaning?

Romanticism ... we all daydream at times, even atheists. 

It's nice, but I don't think it has anything to do with reality.

[Jack Knave]

The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.

And also, what do we mean by purpose or meaning?

Romanticism ... we all daydream at times, even atheists. 

It's nice, but I don't think it has anything to do with reality.

But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned? Where does the capacity to do so come from? Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.

[Shaker]

But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned? Where does the capacity to do so come from? Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.

That's not necessarily true. That point of view - panadaptationism - has a long and distinguished history in evolutionary biology; it has been and is held by some very, very smart people indeed, so there's nothing inherently intellectually disreputable about it. But it's an opinion or perhaps an interpretation, not definitively settled and conclusive fact.

[Jack Knave]

But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned? Where does the capacity to do so come from? Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.

That's not necessarily true. That point of view - panadaptationism - has a long and distinguished history in evolutionary biology; it has been and is held by some very, very smart people indeed, so there's nothing inherently intellectually disreputable about it. But it's an opinion or perhaps an interpretation, not definitively settled and conclusive fact.

So you are saying dreaming in the context I have set it is a secondary feature, one that is not fundamental to the function and survival of the species. For example a bird acquiring a set of long ornamental blue feathers due to say genetic drift?

[Leonard James]

But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned?

I said daydream. Our imagination often indulges in it.

Where does the capacity to do so come from?

It happens when the brain is not being used in everyday living. I suppose it is because it is very difficult to think of nothing ... so the brain just does its own thing.

Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.

I don't think that is true. Many mutations occur that are neither advantageous nor harmful, so they just  get passed on.

[Outrider]

The question is a legitimate one because we humans naturally create a narrative for ourselves to engage our being into the community in which we live, and to do this our society and culture has to be given some form of 'solid' meaning and foundation, some ultimate clarity and form, and therefore, purpose.

Within the context of a social and societal structure, yes it does - however, that's not the context in which it was being used.

The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.

That feeling, though, isn't predicated on anything demonstrable.

O.

[Leonard James]

Daydreams are also a form of escape 😉

I suppose so! We can create a perfect world where nothing bad happens and everybody is happy.

And don't let anybody be creepy enough to suggest it would be boring! If you're bored, you aren't happy, so it would be an impossible thought! 

[Jack Knave]

But why do we dream, especially in the manner I have mentioned?

I said daydream. Our imagination often indulges in it.

Where does the capacity to do so come from?

It happens when the brain is not being used in everyday living. I suppose it is because it is very difficult to think of nothing ... so the brain just does its own thing.

Or to put it another way, what is the evolutionary motive for dreaming in this manner? Nothing is going to come in to existence and survive unless it provides an advantage and something substantial.

I don't think that is true. Many mutations occur that are neither advantageous nor harmful, so they just  get passed on.

You would need to explain why we have the capacity to daydream (which is way more than we need to function; over capacity) and not just be sufficient in dealing with our worldly needs as animals. Most non-functional mutations are very low cost in their energy requirements which is why they are tolerated. Our brains consume 20 - 25 % of all our energy requirements which is substantial if some of that is just there by chance by genetic drift, so that we can dream of being part of some magnanimous cosmic plan.

[Jack Knave]

The question is a legitimate one because we humans naturally create a narrative for ourselves to engage our being into the community in which we live, and to do this our society and culture has to be given some form of 'solid' meaning and foundation, some ultimate clarity and form, and therefore, purpose.

Within the context of a social and societal structure, yes it does - however, that's not the context in which it was being used.

The real underlining question here is why do we sublimate this into some spiritual, 'cosmic', entity; into a 'bigger picture'? Is there a valid postulate here that we are part of something greater than our community's day to day functions and customs? Many people do feel that there is more to life than just earthly things and that it consists in something way beyond our myopic bodily and terrestrial needs.

That feeling, though, isn't predicated on anything demonstrable.

O.

I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.

[Outrider]

I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.

I think feelings are an important part of living, but I think they are a woefully unreliable guide to any sort of 'facts' or 'truth' in most instances. Life would be irrevocably worse without them, but it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what we do or do not know about reality.

O.

[Leonard James]

You would need to explain why we have the capacity to daydream (which is way more than we need to function; over capacity) and not just be sufficient in dealing with our worldly needs as animals.

But day-dreaming is not over functioning. It is simply unoccupied with any living 'problems', so it does its own thing. I suppose it's a form of it relaxing, as in sleeping and dreaming.

Most non-functional mutations are very low cost in their energy requirements which is why they are tolerated. Our brains consume 20 - 25 % of all our energy requirements which is substantial if some of that is just there by chance by genetic drift, so that we can dream of being part of some magnanimous cosmic plan.

Being able to think of the future results of present actions is, I would say, a very important part of our survival mechanism we couldn't do without. But it isn't always in use, and thus gives itself to recreational activity at times.

[Jack Knave]

I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.

I think feelings are an important part of living, but I think they are a woefully unreliable guide to any sort of 'facts' or 'truth' in most instances. Life would be irrevocably worse without them, but it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what we do or do not know about reality.

O.

But just because they don't immediately lead to an answer doesn't mean we should totally disregard them as being invalid and what they may be indicating to us. They are real and they do imply some content, even though we are not always sure what the full content of them are or their ramifications, and the reality behind them.

If science conducted itself in the way you have proposed for feelings then it would have ignored a long list of phenomena because they weren't immediately obvious what they meant or the validity of them for understanding reality, all because science lacked the tools to understand them and investigate them.

[Outrider]

But just because they don't immediately lead to an answer doesn't mean we should totally disregard them as being invalid and what they may be indicating to us. They are real and they do imply some content, even though we are not always sure what the full content of them are or their ramifications, and the reality behind them.

Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply in any way that they were invalid - to some extent, they are the only point, if we didn't feel for the things in life we wouldn't be interested in point or purpose and we'd just mechanically go through the biological necessities.

If science conducted itself in the way you have proposed for feelings then it would have ignored a long list of phenomena because they weren't immediately obvious what they meant or the validity of them for understanding reality, all because science lacked the tools to understand them and investigate them.

As things stand, we are still extremely poor at understanding feelings and emotions. Whilst neurology is beginning to develop,  the ethical constraints we (rightly) place on ourselves when we investigate people's emotional lives make it one of the more challenging areas to work in.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are underrating feelings. They have to come from somewhere and for a reason even if their source is not demonstrable. You seem to be implying they are just some kind of gossamer we can ignore in these particular cases.

I think feelings are an important part of living, but I think they are a woefully unreliable guide to any sort of 'facts' or 'truth' in most instances. Life would be irrevocably worse without them, but it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what we do or do not know about reality.

O.

But if they are part of reality, experience, knowledge, and control of them would make a difference about what we know about reality.

[Outrider]

But if they are part of reality, experience, knowledge, and control of them would make a difference about what we know about reality.

Absolutely, if we knew more about them they might well become a better guide. Given what we know of them at the moment, though, they are currently a very poor guide to anything concrete about reality.

O.

[Rhiannon]

I lost my faith when I no longer felt it was real. If long given up trying to make the nuts and bolts of Christian belief fit together, but it didn't matter whilst it felt real. Once that stopped, I couldn't believe it any more, and I couldn't force myself to feel the way that I used to either.