I went to a debate about the existence of God a few months ago. Dan Barker, an atheist who has contributed to the Daily Show, had the winning quote: "There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that there's meaning in life." The quote is poignant regardless of your religious affiliation. Barker was saying that the meaning of life is intensely personal. Each of us invents it through our own exper…
> "There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that there's meaning in life."
I find statements like this meaningless regardless of how many deities exist.
I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way around. But I guess it would be hard to get speaking engagements saying "you are born, then you die, and what you do in between is a waste of time".... Even if this were the case in reality. (Which I'm not saying it is).
> I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way around.
Did you actually listen to the talk? He comes to the same conclusion.
Do I understand you correctly: - "meaning" or "purpose" in life is whatever we feel "meaningful" or "purposeful". - those feelings are derived through our upbringing, culture, biochemical quirks, etc. Therefore if we could find whichever set of chemicals or brainwashing techniques made us feel 'meaningful', then that sense would allow just as valid and 'meaningful' an existence as any other? Isn't that merely hedonis…
Of course it's hedonistic. But what is wrong with that? I would go so far as to posit that all actions, charitable or otherwise, are driven by the self serving goal of personal satisfaction. If it brings you joy to help others then it becomes a bit of a semantic and meaningless debate as to whether your intentions are noble or not.
It's important to be careful with our definitions. Hedonism in everyday language refers to minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure, with those two words defined imprecisely. The fact that people may derive utility from experiencing pain, both directly (enjoying pain signals themselves) or indirectly (choosing to suffer pain for some "greater good," like a sacrifice for a family member), is usually ignored in the everyday definition of hedonism. Of course, if we define hedonism to mean "people should do what they decide is the best thing for them to do," then it's a fairly obvious thing to support, mainly because it's impossible for a human to do otherwise because of the definitions of "should" and "best."
I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way around. But I guess it would be hard to get speaking engagements saying "you are born, then you die, and what you do in between is a waste of time".... Even if this were the case in reality. (Which I'm not saying it is).
> I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way around. Did you actually listen to the talk? He comes to the same conclusion.
I read the transcript.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. We don't come to the same conclusions. I'm saying the concept of "meaning".... not the "meaning of life" is something derived from the property of life itself. Therefore using this concept to ask a question in a larger context probably isn't valid.
Arent we already doing that? Isnt 'meaning' just a word, a product of the human brain? Plus many people under hallucinogenics report experiences with various intensities of 'meaning'
If I understand the argument, then yes. And it seems rather tragic to me. One of the philosophical benefits to faith in God is that 'meaning' actually is more than just another 'meaningless' chemical reaction. There actually is a reason to live beyond just trying to stay happy. I do believe in God, I do believe there is more to life than keeping the chemical state of my body such that I feel happy and fulfilled. I do…
Are you saying that you express belief in God not because you actually believe God exists in a factual sense, but because you are unable to handle believing that God does not exist? If that's what you're saying, it seems a bit odd, even from a religious perspective. I believe that the major theistic religions teach that God (or gods) actually exist, which is to say their teachings are not just helpful but also true.
"Let instinct trump logic" - bad advice. Instinct is simply pattern matching current conditions against memory. Without experience, instinct is a poor criteria and logic should be employed. Read Kahneman for the supporting research into that.
Is logic not also pattern matching current conditions against memory?
I can't understand how any comment that posits the existence of God or objective morality has been downvoted to oblivion, yet comments that suggests that the only meaning (and thus morality) lies in increasing one's own pleasure are rising to the top.
I'd also like to add that michaelsbradley's comment way down at the bottom of the page sums up my Christian belief on the meaning of life pretty nicely even though I'm not Catholic. (and I suspect I have a different interpretation of "the Church" when I read that statement)