meaning of life for secularist

SilentMastermindINTJ · 06-02-2007, 05:19 PM

I am a secularist and want my decisions to be logical. I think that logic provides the best course of action when considering methods by which to make decisions. So when it comes time to make critical decisions like exactly how to handle complex situations at work, which religions are true or false, and figuring out my political affiliation, logic seems to have the best probability of making the right decision.

There is a problem with this that I see however. If I ask "why do I do this? Why do I do that?" I can come up with logical reasons for each, however there is one question I cannot seem to find a logical answer for. This question is of great importance because all other actions are affected by it. The question is "What is the meaning of life?".

I have heard some atheists and agnostics attempt to answer the question, but their answers so far seem unacceptable or they seem to side-step the question all together. I know Richard Dawkins is one to say that every person creates their own meaning to their life, but I see problems with this. Morals, it would seem, would become relative if that were to happen. Not only that, but if one decides to make "quilting" or "working for the FBI" or "being a good athlete" their purpose in life, it simply raises the same question: "why?".

One might argue that it is to fulfill our desires. Perhaps becoming an athlete is a desire of one person and so they can make that the meaning of their life. I see a problem with this however. It has to do with the value system - why certain things are valued and others are not. Saying that one's purpose is being a good athlete because it is a desire assumes that the desire to do this or that is to be valued. Once again, I am forced to ask "why?". Why should we want to fulfill our desires? What is the reasoning behind it? Is it because doing so makes us happy? That assumes that happiness is to be valued though. Happiness is merely a chemical reaction in the brain though. Why should we value that?

It just seems like the entire concept of 'matter in motion' renders everything useless. Our thoughts, our actions, the things we say, and the people we love are all just atoms. What good is that? Is there any way to bring purpose out of human life with this?

And as a side note, "determinism" is generally what I'm talking about here with the bit about matter in motion.

jaej · 06-02-2007, 06:54 PM

Ultimately people are hedonistic. It's unescapable. Essentially, we do the things we do and value the things we value because we like them, and they give us pleasure. In your example, maybe someone values being a star athlete because they like the attention and fame it brings. So, life really only has as much value as you give it. You go as far as you want to. That's what it means to me anyway.

Og · 06-02-2007, 10:34 PM

From Joseph Campbell's exploration of eastern religion as related in "Myths of Light"

Quote:

Now the key story for me about Buddhism concerns the sermon where the Buddha was seated, and there was a great group around him and he just held up a flower. Just a flower. One in the group got what the Buddha was on about. For him, the flower itself was enough to spark enlightenment. The rest of the crowd were still in the dark, so to speak, so the Buddha delivered a sermon--the great Flower Wreath Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra)--to explain what he meant, which was this:

There is nothing to say about life. It has no meaning. You make meaning. If you want a meaning in your life, find a meaning and bring it into your life, but life won't give you a meaning. Meaning is a concept. It is a notion of an end toward which you are going. The point of Buddhism is this is it.

The Buddha is called tathagata, "the one who has come, thus"; the flower is the tathagata that has come thus. The Buddha is often shown just looking at the flower. That flower is the world. That flower is a flower. That flower is what I am looking at now. This has been made to serve an end but that is not the essence of the mystery of this thing. The essence of the mystery is its very being, which has a ring around it of cosmic ocean, you might say, beyond which you cannot look.

Buddhism is the illumination to the fact, the realization of the fact that this is it. You are it and it is nothing. It is a very difficult thing to tell anyone about because the words themselves suggest that there is a meaning here, but the thing is just to get it, and that is why you can't communicate or teach Buddhism: you can only bring a person up to it.

Purpose is a human concept. It does not have cosmic meaning to have meaning to you. Just be happy and enjoy yourself. Follow your bliss. Consider the lilies of the field, as Jesus Christ would say.

SilentMastermindINTJ · 06-03-2007, 02:04 AM

If I were to translate all of that from your speak into mine, it would all be summed up in one word: axiom. I have considered this before. Create the axiom that human life matters and that you should fulfill your desires to be happy. This has problems though. It's not logical. Someone could just as easily make terrorism their purpose in life because they have a sadistic desire to hurt people. Can you argue that they are wrong? They are only wrong under the assumption that YOUR axiom is true. Under THEIR axiom, they are doing the right thing. So basically, this would make morals relative. You would have axiom vs axiom vs axiom and that would create chaos. The only way I see to have a logical moral system is for life to have some ultimate meaning to it. That would bring forth universal morals and would eleminate the problem of relative morals.

Og · 06-03-2007, 06:39 AM

There is no ultimate meaning to it.

We can be logical and rational. For example, we can make survival and the ability to seek your own happiness/bliss central to the system we choose. We would do this for the sheer reason that without some minimal amount of survival protection, there can be no other goals and desires (i.e. because you're dead).

Then, if someone chooses to be terrorist and kill others for whatever reason there's a clear basis for saying that they are wrong. Good and evil are arbitrary concepts and have no ultimate meaning. Nor does choice or will or death/birth. But they have definitions and rational context.

alexie · 07-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Hi all you truth seekers.
What is truth? This will lead to Morality and the meaning of life.

Us humans demand truth at every corner from our family, doctors, our boss yet we do often do not expect it from morality or from faith/religion. Some reject that any faith/religion is true. Why do we demand truth everywhere but this area? People say there are no absolute truths, its all relative, opinion, do not judge, religion is only about faith and not facts!
If something is true, it is true for all people. All truth claims are absolute, narrow and exclusive. That means the opposite of truth is false.
A comment like, “there is no such thing as truth”, is self defeating as it is said as an absolute thus negating what you have just said. Another comment I often hear is, “All truth is relative and there are no absolutes.” Are you absolutely sure about this? It does not meet its own criteria by being absolute rather than relative. Another is, “its true for you but not for me”. Is this true for you or for everybody?

So truth exists, AND THIS IS ABSOLUTE. No self defeating words here.
If you deny this then you are making a self defeating claim. So complete agnosticism and skeptism cannot be true in the true definition of truth. Is religion/faith absolute? Are all religions true? NO, as they contradict each other in many ways even though in some ways they look similar.

Can truth be known then? If you say no and truth cannot be known, then it is self defeating again as you are making it an absolute and saying you know the truth, which is that nothing can be known.

Many truths about God can be seen by His effects, which we can observe and deduct. We can see the pattern just like the pattern in nature(science) and so called evolution. The same goes for morality and faith, these have eternal consequences and what we do not know or do not care about can hurt us. If there are no absolutes then why should anyone believe anything? Because we have evidence through our senses that there is an absolute. Some will say this is God. These senses allow me to know Him, allow me to study Him through the Bible and I have many other witnesses to this fact. In science we learn everything has a cause, so what caused the big bang? Whatever was before it operates beyond natural means and physical laws since there was nothing, so say some. There was something as science says there must be and the only reasonable answer is God. So what caused God? Nothing as He is eternal, outside of time and was never created.

1-Every law has a law giver
2- This is the moral/ethical law(the policy if you want)
3- Thus we have a moral/ethical/Policy law giver.

You see what happens is that if you think that there is no moral absolute then you can deceive yourself that you can change your behaviour and make it relative. This just allows us as individuals and as a society to go further down in the depths of depravity.

We cannot reduce morality to materialism. Does love have an atom? Does this moral law have chemical compositions? Moral law is something non-material and premise four would be that God gives us this moral law within each of us. Morals do not evolve out of co-operation within groups. If this is true then how does this evolution know to do this to “survive” which is an end in itself? This requires intelligence and evolution does not believe in that. If it is just survival and there are no standards then there is no difference between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. This is would be appalling to most people? Why? They know there is a difference and we know this because of our moral law.

The meaning of life is about following the creator, knowing Him and finding your purpose through Him.

alexie

Og · 07-14-2007, 08:32 PM

I'm sorry you are so taken in by the object based perception that your brain provides you with alexie. If only you understood the ultimate illusion that is an individual then you'd understand that laws and lawgivers and texts and codes and contents and authors are all the same thing.

You clearly are unqualified to talk about the nature of the universe.

But your way works for people who don't have the resources to actually seek the truth. It's good to have your ideas around I suppose. I just wish there was something a little less ignorant that was appealing to the masses.

duck · 07-14-2007, 09:10 PM

Laws are a matter of fact or necessity. There is no need for a lawgiver.

3.5/10 in effort and originality.

alexie · 07-15-2007, 01:07 AM

Hi og

You states:"If only you understood the ultimate illusion that is an individual then you'd understand that laws and lawgivers and texts and codes and contents and authors are all the same thing."

Well, well Og you have made an absolute statement!
You said that codes, lawgivers and laws are all the same thing. You have made this absolute staement. So lets test this statement.
The law of not driving till a certain age is made by politicians. These are written down in detail using texts. Are you saying the law is the same as the humans who made the laws and that these humans are the same as the written word in a text? I do not klnowe if you noticed but the human has an intelligence and creates the law. The law is an idea or information, which is non-material. When the law is printed it then becomes material but is still information. Where does the information come from? Since athiests believe in materialism then information cannot just come from mere chemcials and meat in the brain. For how can something material produce something non-material. That would go against all athiestic belief. So there must be a law maker!

You stated:"You clearly are unqualified to talk about the nature of the universe."
What makes someone qualified to talk about the nature of the universe?
As you do not know me and have made such an absolute statement about me I am wondering how my comments could cause you to make that absolute statement? Do you actually know me? My qualifications?
What do you know that allows you to make such an absolute staement?
HMMMMM
waiting

alexie

alexie · 07-15-2007, 01:12 AM

Hi Og

Most arguments about evolution and intelligent design offer only anecdotal evidence and are inherently incapable of actually proving anything. We must get better evidence in order to get to the bottom of this! Fortunately, the science of modern communications easily provides us with the tools we need to get answers. Although the details are complex, the concepts are easily grasped by anyone with a high school education.

Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day.

Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols create information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.

Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence.

We can explore five possible conclusions:

1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one.

To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

Please Og and others. Instead of calling me ignorant or not qualified please reply to the comments I have made and stick to "truth" finding instead of name calling. If you can?

alexie