It's quite incredible.
You are born out of stardust, your life in its beginning is indeed free of any deeper meaning and true purpose. You are a brain fighting for survival, against the monstrous odds.
What you now choose to do with that shell is up to you. You can train that brain, you can choose habits that are good or bad, and you can decide how to apply the bag of random accident that is you and your life to deliver on a purpose.
You may have certain privileges over others to help you on your way - richer family, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. can all make certain doors open or shut for you - but your meaningless life, born with no purpose, is yours to shape as you see fit.
You don't need God to find purpose. In fact, defining your life as being in service to a deity narrows your potential. You might be happy with that, and I won't try and convince you otherwise.
But your stance that not grabbing life for what it is and needing to believe in God to give yourself a sense of meaning and purpose - that's the dark and depressing version of the story for many of us.
I see this argument used, but it always feels forced to me, trying to make lemonade from the lemons given. Or stardust, in this case.
I don't think it's necessarily "depressing", but neither it's "incredible". It is what it is.
>You may have certain privileges over others to help you on your way - richer family, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. can all make certain doors open or shut for you - but your meaningless life, born with no purpose, is yours to shape as you see fit.
Well, in this version, you still age, decline, and die forever anyway, so one can argue there's no much meaning into this "shaping". Temporary struggle (and often hard struggle) for no great reward, just ultimate old age and death.
I mean, maybe it was just important for the brain to have a model of threats. Once we created models of obvious threats, the human capacity for abstract thinking generated abstract super-threats and then began to model such potential threats in the manner to which it was accustomed — via personification in the beginning, and then mathematically.
Really, physics replaces God as the dominant belief system because physics is scarier than God.
[0] https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/438/013/8ad...
Yes you do, or at the very least some higher axiomatic meaning that people refer to by "god" and you demonstrate it with your own post: it's just that instead of using the word "god", you use the words "stardust" or "good habits".
Implying that stardust is somehow a good thing (which is your own interpretation, which you assume for some reason is obvious to everyone else? Why exactly is stardust a cool thing, and not a dead meaningless dreadful thing?), and that "good habits" is a meaningful thing to pursue. Those become your deities. There is no difference except for which words are used.
The stardust itself doesn't give you any meaning. It is you that fill those words with meaning. People do exactly the same thing with the word "god".
[0] Don't want to start a flamewar here, but there are so many contradicting ideas of god out there that at least most of them must be wrong. So regardless of some conception of god being true, the purpose is still felt by all the faithful.
It's funny that you would write something like that as if it was a useful statement. Reducing that much complexity in such a nonchalant way... But nevertheless...
> that humans give meaning to their own existance.
If you have time can you share what you think is the reason for why humans have a capability, the will to give their life meaning? Where does it come from? Why is their ability to give life meaning able to produce actual tangible results in their lives and lives of other people? If that ability even implemented through some genetic mechanism, why does the world work that way that it produces this type of genetics, that can create meaning? Genetics could have worked in any number of ways, why this one?
Would you say that love "exists"? Would you say that an integral "exists"? What about if there are no mathematicians that know about it or use it? Does it still exist?
Why humans actually do this is of course a hot topic in both philosophy and psychology, for at least a few thousand years now. I think the cognitive root lies in us being social animals. Being social means needing to keep the group together, which makes communication necessary, to align individual actions to a cohesive whole. Communication is hard, though, misunderstandings lurk everywhere. We therefore have to interpret the signals we got from the others, fill the gaps of the unsaid. We necessarily have to infer intentions, meaning, relations to us and so on. If we couldn't to that, we couldn't form cohesive groups, and therefore cease to exist as a species. We could become some other species, but not the current one, having discourse over the internet, sitting in different parts of the world.
All higher order concepts like "love", "purpose" etc. are more elaborate functions to sucessfully and peacefully live together. They actually exist, even physically, as processes in our brains and bodies. But they aren't necessarily ojective. If we as a species would have originated in a physically different world, say as spherical creatures living in the oceans of Titan, we would also have different sets of feelings and emotions. The idea of "love" of such a species could be a completely different one than our human concept.
> do I know a single religious person, yet most of those people feel some kind of purpose or meaning in their live.
Ah well yes, :). Being religious - vs - having an inner meaning/{what some people call god}/aka being spiritual - is like having gone through a CS program in an expensive university - vs - actually knowing how to code.
If that's all we're talking about then there are barely any true atheists.
However, a deep understanding of that gives you freedom. Because if everything is objectively meaningless, then just by virtue of finding something interesting, you have just given that something MORE meaning than everything else. Thus, whatever you find interesting is almost infinitely more meaningful than anything else.
That's pretty cool - your choice changes the entire universe, for you. If you manage to be persistent enough, then for others as well. Kind of makes you all-powerful ;)
Don't worry winter_blue. Your soul is not your brain! Life begins for us when we don't have brains after all. God also exists outside our brains and bodies. God has given our souls tools (brain, body) which work in marvellous ways. What motivates you and gives you meaning isn't something that is conjured up by your brain to just to budget energy in the body.
For those who don't believe in souls: Your heart is not your brain. Love is not your brain. What you feel deep down to be right, good and true is our heart. What motivates you and gives you meaning isn't something that is conjured up by your brain just to budget energy in the body.
To those who don't believe in (one or more of:) heart, soul, love, meaning, motivation, or anything higher: Assuming your thoughts are that humans are a bio-robot, the system itself creates meaning and motivation. The system, as if in a simulation, creates these sub-systems which for all intents and purposes are designed to be as if they are real. These sub systems are present in nature also to a lesser (or at least more opaque) extent. If you believe that X is not real because your body, brain and the robot you are in, simulates X, then X is at the very least functionally real if not fundamentally. Thus, similar to the question about what we should do if we were in a simulation, it's probably going to be best to go along with the ride.
> Social conformity or not, Mr. Zuckerman was deeply impressed with the matter-of-fact way in which many of his interviewees spoke of death, without fear or anxiety, and their notable lack of existential searching for any ultimate meaning of life.
> A long list of thinkers, both believers and nonbelievers, have posited something like an innate religious instinct. Confronted by the mystery of death or the puzzle of life’s ultimate meaning, humans are said to be hard-wired to turn to religion or something like it. Based on his experience in Scandinavia, Mr. Zuckerman disagrees.
I'm sorry to break your feelings, but your belief can't survive the logical analysis, even if we accept the existence of higher conscious entities.
It's more reasonable to believe that we are free to pick a purpose.
Meaning isn't out there to be found in the universe, it is a purely human concept. We can't find meaning, we must create it.
If this article prevents you from doing that, then your sense of meaning may need shoring up.
That would be irrelevant if it was also true. The universe doesn't guarantee/care for meaning and/or true purpose.
What exactly falsifiable indications do you have of that?
I don't know why you would phrase it that way. What does "believe in" mean?
That they are a tool that can be used for some purposes? Yes sure.
That they are the only tool that has any meaning, the only one that matters, or even the one that produces most truth? In that case - no, not even close.
I wrote that your original statement is more of an opinion/spiritual statement than a falsifiable scientific statement. Then by extension and simple logic, of course the exact opposite of your statement (does care vs does not care) is also obviously an opinion/spiritual statement. As such, it of course doesn't neither have falsifiable indications. How could it be any other way?
It just didn't sound like you realize that what you wrote is an opinion, and not some hard-cut proved and obvious statement, so I was wondering whether you realize it? Or do you have an illusion that you have provable grounds for it?
It's just a casual way to say "If you're all for theories and falsifiliability".
(It's also pedantically correct. In the end everything comes down to believing it).
>I wrote that your original statement is more of an opinion/spiritual statement than a falsifiable scientific statement.
It's also empirically consistent. The observed universe is mostly gas, rock, nuclear reactors we call stars, and so on. Where are the proofs that it has a "purpose" or "meaning"?
>It just didn't sound like you realize that what you wrote is an opinion, and not some hard-cut proved and obvious statement, so I was wondering whether you realize it? Or do you have an illusion that you have provable grounds for it?
No, I have the certainty that it's the only empirically matching to observables conclusion, and that it's the less extraordinary claim (and the simplest one).
It's any further claims that need to bring proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Occam's razor, and all that.
Where are the visible proofs of love? Of mathematical formulas? Of radio waves? Where is the tangible visible obvious proof that the earth is not flat? Where is the tangible proof that your life has any future that makes any sense for you to get up in the morning and do any work?
"There is no meaning because I can't physically see an old guy in the sky" has to be one of the least developed arguments in this sphere...
Physiological changes in the body/brain consistently assosiated with said self-reported state.
>Of mathematical formulas?
We can reproduce most of their results with physical objects (adding 1 and 1 rocks makes 2 rocks, the shortest line between two points we can draw with less ink on a piece of paper is the straight line, in a sphere it's the geodesic and it indeed saves planes gas, and so on...)\
>Of radio waves?
Err, plenty of visible proofs of radio waves. You can very easily scan a room with a portable scanner, not to mention we hear the sound they carry.
>Where is the tangible visible obvious proof that the earth is not flat?
Photographs from space?
>Where is the tangible proof that your life has any future that makes any sense for you to get up in the morning and do any work?
There's none, since that doesn't exist.
Ah, I see. Sorry about that. If you feel that way in your life, then it makes sense that you believe the things you write.
Yes.
>they are a product of “accident or chance”
Yes.
>they are but MeetMe automatons
Hahahahahah no, only if they choose to be.
Deeply understanding the implications of points 1 and 2 give you the freedom to not put up with bullshit, and can lead to, dare I say it, salvation?
Where science and religion merge into a coherent whole is the true kingdom of heaven.
There are different periods for different focus as well.
Spirituality is a system built up inside every individual that fills their life with meaning and expands their consciousness. The common spiritual texts, including the new testament are a good tool to build up this spirituality, inside each particular individual, that works for a large number of people. It has been selected by the group consciousness as a particularly good tool, good aid in helping people this way. It is not the only tool, and for a particular individual might not even be the best one, but it is a good one that has stood the test of time.
The religion on the other hand usually refers to the outside structure that is often built on top of a spiritual tradition/text. It includes structural elements like the network of churches, some additional practices, political movements, attempts to control population, hierarchy systems between priests, reputation etc. It is this additional structure that much more often gets corrupted by the natural human corruptive forces, just like governments, corporations or large open source frameworks do. When people get power, they sometimes corrupt, and they do it with whatever the underlying structure was.
The law of Moses in the Old Testament for the Jews was such that if you broke one law, you broke all, essentially making it impossible for anyone to achieve salvation by following the law or by working for it.
The Gentiles (non Jews) who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it
Enter New Testament: Jesus Christ of Nazareth, comes not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it, such that every man (being) receives the FREE gift of salvation, and eternal life.
Now this life bears good fruit in all that believe.
Image you owe someone else money. An anonymous stranger pays your debt. Why would you have to acknowledge that, for that someone else to receive said payment?
God in the form of Jesus paid your debts you have with God, but unless you believe that, God won't recognize that, will still kill you at best, torture you forever at worst, depending on who you ask. You can call that love or salvation, but I won't.
Look, If your debt was paid, and no one told you that the debt was paid, or you had no knowledge of it, would your conscience be free of that debt? No.
The Gospel is preached to bring man to the knowledge that they are free, and live freely therein.
> Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I could keep the truth and let God go.
-- Meister Eckhart
I know next to nothing about Christianity, but I know a few things about Judaism. And I've never encountered this idea in Judaism. Do you have a source for this? Is this actually a teaching of the Law of Moses, as you call it, or just something Christians think Jews believed?
Seems like a straw man.
> Enter New Testament: Jesus Christ of Nazareth, comes not to abolish the law, but to fulfil it, such that every man (being) receives the FREE gift of salvation, and eternal life.
Pardon my cynicism but this seems kind of ridiculous. God made a bunch of laws about how people should behave, presumably because there's right and wrong and the particular things God cares about matter, and then Jesus renegotiated the deal on behalf of everyone? So we can all do whatever we want, like rape, steal, homosexuality[0]... it's all cool. Jesus paid your debt, go sin.
[0] Intentionally grouping murder and gay sex together because the Old Testament calls these things bad behavior. If Jesus renegotiated the deal by arguing that some of these things are not really bad, so maybe some of the rules should be changed but others should be kept, I'd get that. But that's not the claim you're making.
Well, If you are familiar with the book of James (a Jew) in the bible, he says this, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." The law is a single unit.
> God made a bunch of laws about how people should behave, presumably because there's right and wrong and the particular things God cares about matter
Sin precedes the law and not the other way round. The law was given because of transgression. Look at the law as a guardian, a schoolmaster, to protect, and to preserve for a time, till the Saviour should come. God did not intend to relate with man through the law because by the law, is the knowledge of sin.
>... it's all cool. Jesus paid your debt, go sin.
If anyone is living in sin and claims that he or she is living under grace, let me be the first to tell you that this person is not living under grace. How can he or she be when God’s Word clearly states that “sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14)? Based on the authority of God’s Word, a person who is under grace will not be dominated by or want to continue living in sin.
He Who Is Forgiven Much, Loves Much.
The book of James is not part of Jewish canon and is not read by Jews. It's a Christian book. That James was a Jew is irrelevant, Jesus was also a Jew, does that mean the teachings of Jesus are Judaism? Woody Allen is Jewish too, but you can't quote his movies and call them Jewish teachings.
> Sin precedes the law and not the other way round. The law was given because of transgression. Look at the law as a guardian, a schoolmaster, to protect, and to preserve for a time, till the Saviour should come. God did not intend to relate with man through the law because by the law, is the knowledge of sin.
Ok, I can kind of understand this. It's a fundamentally different idea of the purpose of the rules and the nature of right and wrong. Seems foreign to me because I thought the law was to protect people from doing inherently bad things, and sin is just a fancy word for bad things. So I didn't understand how Jesus could make doing bad things suddenly ok. But this sounds like a more relativistic approach. Ok, I can get behind that I guess.
> If anyone is living in sin and claims that he or she is living under grace, let me be the first to tell you that this person is not living under grace. How can he or she be when God’s Word clearly states that “sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14)? Based on the authority of God’s Word, a person who is under grace will not be dominated by or want to continue living in sin.
I have no idea what this means, sounds like a lot of jargon that I'm sure makes sense to someone who is familiar with it but I don't get it.
The obvious question is: why? Why was it ever necessary, if God is omnipotent? Why was it so late, so that people living earlier had no chance? And so on.
The Gnostics, Marcions and so on came up with another interesting idea: there were two Gods, one from the Old Testament, and another from the New Testament. The former was the creator but wasn't really caring for his creation. The latter was the God of Love and he sent his son in order to save mankind - Jesus was a kind of ransom paid to the former. This theory has slightly more sense than the one presented in mainstream Christianity.
To answer this, God is a just God. If the penalty of sin is death, then surely someone had to die to pay the price. God could have just swept all mankind's sins under the rag, and acted like nothing ever happened. But such would not be considered integrity or righteousness on God's part.
Also if by one man (Adam), sin came into the world, and all men were considered sinners, then justly, by one man (Jesus Christ)'s death and resurrection, the price was fully paid, all men (mankind) can now freely claim the gift of righteousness.
>Why was it so late, so that people living earlier had no chance?
Well just like you stated, God is omnipotent, and not limited by time and space. It's never late or early in God's eyes. We would not explicitly say they had no chance, then or now, goes back to God being Just.
In my opinion though, the relationship nature of Christianity holds up well both in the Old Testament and New Testament.
No. This is such a dreadful, and terrible and empty perspective that disembowels life of deeper meaning and of true purpose. It’s another one of those sad perspectives that tells people that they are nothing but automatons, that their lives are fundamentally meaningless, and that they are a product of “accident or chance”. It’s a highly depressing, and a dark and empty way of looking at life. (For full disclosure, I’m a Christian and believe in God and in a higher purpose for all that exists in this universe.)