3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasOk, thanks for clearing that up.
[b]...life can have meaning beyond the nodding of a made up entity.
I realize that it is possible for an individual to create meaning for oneself, but if life is objectively meaningless, which it undoubtedly must be in an impersonal universe wherein everything is the product of blind chance, then creating meaning for oneself can only be con ...[text shortened]... the atheistic/naturalistic worldview outside of these sorts of attempts at deluding oneself...?[/b]
But why is it a self-deception? If there is no Grand Meaning to the universe (how I'm interpreting your "objectively meaningless" ) then individuals are free to assign their own meaning to their lives. The existentialists dealt with this at length. The atheist is free to chose whatever meaning he prefers.
Note that the absence of a Grand Meaning is not contradictory with the existence of many individual meanings (possibly not compatible across individuals). How can it be self-deception if there is no contradiction?
Originally posted by epiphinehasFutile...for what? If the universe has no objective then nothing is useful or futile for that particular purpose. The very nature of those words presupposes an objective.
The atheist must contend with the absurdity of an existence wherein all his efforts are ultimately futile.
But if the self-assigned meaning is the only one that exists, then one's efforts are not futile at all.
6 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloAt bottom, you still think "objective" meaning hinges on the existence of God, right?
[b]If life has a purpose, if we ourselves are made for a purpose, and it is a purpose we can have a properly basic knowledge of, a purpose which carries on to its fulfillment whether we are conscious of it or not, what isn't objective about that?
You tell me: exactly what about all that *is* 'objective'? I'm not trying to be dense: rather, So, even supposing you are right, why should the atheist care?[/b]
I do.
Whereas at the same time you allow that other forms of meaning could exist apart from the existence of God but that these could not suffice for "objective" meaning, right?
Yes, because morality is henceforth (in a post-theistic world) relative; a matter of opinion.
Again, how does any of that make any sense? How would the mind-independent status of some thing hinge on the existence of some mind?
Perhaps because God's mind is not just some mind. I mean, there has to be something to that; on most every occasion I can think of in the relevant literature it is recognized that God's existence established objective morality and meaning, and after Christianity's 'self-dissolution', as it were, that was taken away; the result being a post-theistic culture wherein individuals, in whatever fashion, confront the absurdity of life. Are you saying that from the very beginning it was a mistake to assume that God's presence establishes anything significant about reality? If that is the case, why the present day 'new atheist' ballyhoo? And why did Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, etc., each assume that God's death meant the death of objective morality and meaning?
As I understand it, God establishes moral absolutes by divine decree. His decree is absolute because it is an extension of his own absolute nature. It, his decree, arises from him and thereby has its reality in him. In other words, God himself is the 'object' in question; i.e., being a source of absolutes, moral or otherwise, is his prescribed nature. It is for this reason, IMO, God's 'death' is considered the death of absolute morality.
The only thing I think you have made clear enough is that the meaning you outline depends on the existence of God. That only goes to suggest that it has at least some subjective dimension, since it depends to that extent on the existence of some particular mind. So, if anything, what you describe seems subjectivist.
OK, so what does that entail?
Even if she believes that all things, including her own self, are impermanent and without eternal significance; and even if she thinks there are no moral absolutes or imperatives; that does not show that she would be inconsistent in finding her life meaningful.
I think it does; she is asserting a contradiction: holding both (1) that life has no inherent meaning, and (2) that her life is meaningful. If (1) is true, how can (2) be true? If we assume that the universe is entirely devoid of meaning, then her life cannot have meaning in so far as it is a part of the universe.
...there are "chains of justification" surrounding your actions that simply terminate within immediate context and do not require any justification...
Are you saying that ignorance of inconsistency makes the atheist somehow consistent? How can mere ignorance change what is true? I agree that ignorance is one solution to absurdity (and it would have to be ignorance, since we are otherwise self-aware, rational creatures). Still, ignorance cannot fundamentally change the existential dilemma.
First, I don't know why you seem to conflate nihilism and absurdism. As far as I understand them, they are not the same.
Because... well, I lack a thorough education. Which is OK, as long as I am willing to accept correction. 🙂
As I just pointed out, none of the considerations you listed are all that relevant or have really anything to do with imbuing one's existence with genuine content in the regular exercises and practices surrounding agency. So, even supposing you are right, why should the atheist care?
Of course they (i.e, God and immortality) are relevant to the regular exercises and practices surrounding agency, because the fact is human beings cannot live as though morality were merely a matter of personal taste or social convention; we cannot live as though certain acts aren't genuinely right or wrong. Whether Christian or atheist, people need absolutes. Our values undergird everything we do and without meaning for our lives we are constitutionally unable to persist. Even the most ardent absurdity-conscious stoic requires it. Further, I highly doubt that any rational and self-aware atheist could truly live in perfect ignorance of absurdity. At some point she is going to be confronted with the terrible fact that her convictions lack any terra firma in reality. This is where atheism fails. And precisely where Christianity succeeds.
Originally posted by amannionSince I will end and be nothing, I must therefore live via a worldview that says my life has no value.
End in nothing ... is nothing. This is your logical leap of faith that makes no sense at all to me.
Yes, I accept that I, everyone that I know, everyone that has ever existed, and everyone that will ever exist, as well as all of the other creatures and things in the universe, will end in nothing. But I can't see the logical steps that means that me, and ev ...[text shortened]... this perspective - it has no logic. Nor do any of the arguments you've put forward so far.
If you are to be consistent, yes.
...it is precisely because I will end as nothing that places enormous value on my life - it exists for such a short period of time and then is gone.
Nevertheless, you are making this valuation despite the fact that your world-view contradicts your valuation.
Originally posted by PalynkaHow can it be self-deception if there is no contradiction?
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
But why is it a self-deception? If there is no Grand Meaning to the universe (how I'm interpreting your "objectively meaningless" ) then individuals are free to assign their own meaning to their lives. The existentialists dealt with this at length. The atheist is free to chose whatever meaning he prefers.
Note that the ...[text shortened]... ot compatible across individuals). How can it be self-deception if there is no contradiction?
As far as I'm aware (which isn't that far), yes, meaning-creation is to be expected for atheists within existentialism, but never at the expense of absurdity. The contradiction is always going to be there between the meaninglessness of existence and the individual's created meaning. As soon as the created meaning is mistaken for real meaning, then it becomes self-deception.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasMany of the things you use in life can be destroyed. Does that mean all of them have no value while they exist?
[b]Since I will end and be nothing, I must therefore live via a worldview that says my life has no value.
If you are to be consistent, yes.
...it is precisely because I will end as nothing that places enormous value on my life - it exists for such a short period of time and then is gone.
Nevertheless, you are making this valuation despite the fact that your world-view contradicts your valuation.[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhy is the individual's created meaning less real? I honestly don't follow you.
[b]How can it be self-deception if there is no contradiction?
As far as I'm aware (which isn't that far), yes, meaning-creation is to be expected for atheists within existentialism, but never at the expense of absurdity. The contradiction is always going to be there between the meaninglessness of existence and the individual's created meaning. As soon as the created meaning is mistaken for real meaning, then it becomes self-deception.[/b]
Originally posted by Palynka...if the self-assigned meaning is the only one that exists, then one's efforts are not futile at all.
Futile...for what? If the universe has no objective then nothing is useful or futile for that particular purpose. The very nature of those words presupposes an objective.
But if the self-assigned meaning is the only one that exists, then one's efforts are not futile at all.
At bottom, though, you remain a product of chance, a momentary amalgamation of atomic forces, cellular structures, organs, temporarily existing to propagate DNA, inevitably dissolving into nothing. It is impossible to escape from the fact that all our efforts mean precisely nothing. If we insist on ascribing meaning to our lives in the interim between nothing and nothing, what is that worth? Nothing. All this proves is that we cannot live without a certain sense of absolute value; we need to believe that some things are genuinely meaningful, whether atheist or Christian.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasNot worth much in whose eyes? For the individual, it might be priceless (and also for those around him).
[b]...if the self-assigned meaning is the only one that exists, then one's efforts are not futile at all.
At bottom, though, you remain a product of chance, a momentary amalgamation of atomic forces, cellular structures, organs, temporarily existing to propagate DNA, inevitably dissolving into nothing. It is impossible to escape from the fact tha ...[text shortened]... ue; we need to believe that some things are genuinely meaningful, whether atheist or Christian.[/b]
You see, I think implicitly you posit a conscious entity that oversees the whole universe and for such an entity I would be less than a speck of a speck of a speck of dust. But if in the atheist view such an entity does not exist, then all that is irrelevant. It is worth nothing for nothing, yet everything for himself. This is consistency.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaBecause it persists in a vacuum. In reality, child molestation, acts of genocide, torture, etc., are just phenomenon, without being inherently evil. In a universe without absolute morality, evil acts are no different than good ones, they are only differently shaped amalgamations of atoms and molecules. This is the terrible reality that bumps up against your moral outrage. If it is your assumption that this is the way the universe really works, then you must either accept the fact that your moral outrage is groundless, or pretend that it isn't.
Why is the individual's created meaning less real? I honestly don't follow you.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou see, I think implicitly you posit a conscious entity that oversees the whole universe and for such an entity I would be less than a speck of a speck of a speck of dust. But if in the atheist view such an entity does not exist, then all that is irrelevant. It is worth nothing for nothing, yet everything for himself. This is consistency.
Not worth much in whose eyes? For the individual, it might be priceless (and also for those around him).
You see, I think implicitly you posit a conscious entity that oversees the whole universe and for such an entity I would be less than a speck of a speck of a speck of dust. But if in the atheist view such an entity does not exist, then all that is irrelevant. It is worth nothing for nothing, yet everything for himself. This is consistency.
Yes, and that would be fine if we possessed the rational capacity and self-awareness of dogs and cats. Alas...
Originally posted by epiphinehasPersonally, it doesn't bump at all because I'm a non-cognitivist. All moral statements in that view are just the expression of preferences so I'm perfectly fine with moral statements not being true or false. My disgust for such acts persists, not in a vacuum, but in my preferences. I don't find this groundless at all.
Because it persists in a vacuum. In reality, child molestation, acts of genocide, torture, etc., are just phenomenon, without being inherently evil. In a universe without absolute morality, evil acts are no different than good ones, they are only differently shaped amalgamations of atoms and molecules. This is the terrible reality that bumps up agains ...[text shortened]... you must either accept the fact that you moral outrage is groundless, or pretend that it isn't.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI see. 😕
[b]You see, I think implicitly you posit a conscious entity that oversees the whole universe and for such an entity I would be less than a speck of a speck of a speck of dust. But if in the atheist view such an entity does not exist, then all that is irrelevant. It is worth nothing for nothing, yet everything for himself. This is consistency.
Yes, ...[text shortened]... ould be fine if we possessed the rational capacity and self-awareness of dogs and cats. Alas...[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasPalynka asked:
Because it persists in a vacuum. In reality, child molestation, acts of genocide, torture, etc., are just phenomenon, without being inherently evil. In a universe without absolute morality, evil acts are no different than good ones, they are only differently shaped amalgamations of atoms and molecules. This is the terrible reality that bumps up agains ...[text shortened]... ou must either accept the fact that your moral outrage is groundless, or pretend that it isn't.
“...Why is the individual's created meaning less real? ...”
which just happens to be the question I wanted to ask you.
And your response starts off with the vague statement:
“...Because it persists in a vacuum. ...”
and then you basically go on to imply that there is no “absolute morality “ in an atheists world.
But that doesn't answer his question:
Firstly, for starters, many atheists will disagree and say there IS “absolute morality“ (me not being one of them) and, regardless of whether they are correct in that belief in “absolute morality“, there is no logical contradiction in disbelieving there exists a god (i.e. being atheist) and believing there is absolute morality. And even for atheists like myself that do NOT believe there is absolute morality, we don't disbelieve that there is “absolute morality“ BECAUSE we are atheists! Those two things are totally separate issues in my mind. What do you think is the logical contradiction between there being an absolute morality and no god? -you don't need to believe that a god says what the absolute morality is to believe there is absolute morality.
Secondly, despite evidence to the contrary (in the form of the existence of atheists believing there is an absolute morality) EVEN if, somehow, being atheist DOES naturally lead to not believing there is an absolute morality, how would that answer the question anyway? Remember, the question was “...Why is the individual's created meaning less real? ...”. So what does your belief in the nature of morality got to do with how “real” an individual's created meaning is?
Suppose I decided that part of the meaning in my life is to invent things because that's simply what I want to do. How would not believing there exists an absolute morality make that decision and the motives for that decision “less real”?
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo, you've still yet to explain to me why my life ending in nothing therefore means it has no value.
[b]Since I will end and be nothing, I must therefore live via a worldview that says my life has no value.
If you are to be consistent, yes.
...it is precisely because I will end as nothing that places enormous value on my life - it exists for such a short period of time and then is gone.
Nevertheless, you are making this valuation despite the fact that your world-view contradicts your valuation.[/b]
So I shall happily continue to be consistent until you can demonstrate otherwise.