First, however, I must point out that Roger has actually done a great job elucidating some of the points I originally tried to make. Indeed, his summary is spot on when he says:
I notice that neither you nor Paul are really disagreeing with Peter or myself on this subject. Pretty much every point has been ceded about the worldview's content and necessary implications - the only real response has been, 'Yes, but, we like it enough not to kill ourselves yet.'Now remember, my original thesis was: Within atheism, life is meaningless because the only thing that can give it meaning is the individuals who live their lives, and when they die all their meaning vanishes with them. Inherent in this claim is the fact that the only type of meaning an atheist can claim is subjective meaning.
The Subjectivity of Atheism
Zilch’s main tactic has been to claim that I’ve been smuggling in theistic concepts when determining how an atheist ought to act. I pointed out the irony of this since Zilch also stated that what I had said about nihilism fit with Sartre (is this a tacit admission that Sartre was a closet theist?).
I had originally said:
So our evolution causes us to long to survive, which requires us to ignore the objective reality of our universe. There is no meaning, but in order for us to survive we have to pretend there is meaning.To which Zilch responded (italics his):
Nope. What "objective reality" must we ignore? As I said, there is meaning in the universe, or rather many meanings. Once more, you are assuming your position to be true- I don't have to pretend. If you can prove to me that there is a God, that would be a different story.Here Zilch is so certain that I’m smuggling “God concepts” into the discussion that he ignores the implications of his very response. I am most certainly NOT smuggling any theism into my statements at all. My argument has NOTHING to do with what I believe about the universe, and I can prove it by using Zilch’s own words here.
Zilch says: “There is meaning in the universe” but immediately backs away from that by saying “or rather many meanings.” But that, precisely, IS my point. There are many “meanings” that an atheist claims, yet none of them are objective. They do not transcend the individuals involved. Indeed, how could they? They remain totally and completely subjective. And if they are totally and completely subjective, then this is exactly what I claimed in my very thesis statement.
Zilch responded to my following comment:
But just because something is doesn't mean something ought to be that way. That is, just because we've come about from creatures with a survivability instinct doesn't mean that's what we ought to have.by stating:
Since we've also evolved intelligence, then we're able to separate the is/ought and look at the world and see there is no reason to live.
That might be true if one presupposes an eternal Ought. But since, in the atheist view, such a thing does not exist, but rather all "oughts" are evolved entities, then this cannot be the position of the naturalist, but only the imagination of someone who already believes. Of course there are reasons to live: they are evolved, not eternal, and peculiar to us humans, but they are the only kinds of reasons we have. From the point of view of an atheist, naturally.Again, all italics are his. And once again, Zilch is so intent on finding an underlying theistic bent to my argument that he doesn’t realize he’s once again handed me exactly what I claimed before in his own words. When I say that “just because something is doesn’t mean something ought to be” that is not a claim that there is an eternal “Ought” out there. Indeed, my point was that there is no ought at all from the atheist perspective. That’s why you cannot derive one from what is.
In other words, Zilch completely missed my point because of his bias in reading what I’ve written. (He’s unfortunately tunnel blinded by not realizing that I am fully capable of making an argument from someone else’s presuppositions.)
And finally note that Zilch once again agrees that the only reasons to live are “evolved, not eternal, and peculiar to us humans.” Indeed, he emphasizes that these are the “only kinds of reasons we have”. Which again just IS my thesis statement. So at this point I have to wonder just who Zilch is arguing against, because thus far he’s been in total agreement with what I said before while missing the fact that I actually said it.
Now Zilch believes that our concepts of how we view meaning came about via evolution. He states this repeatedly, and I’ve already quoted one such passage above. But despite that he also admits:
Now that we have achieved a degree of freedom from want, we are less constrained to have only beliefs that are accurate or even fitness enhancing, and we can still thrive: if you are rich enough, you can believe just about anything.So on the one hand, our beliefs come via evolution, but on the other hand they don’t because we can now deviate from the path of evolution. One wonders where these deviations arose from.
In any case, however, it should be noted that evolutionary beliefs merely select for survivability advantage. They do not select for truthfulness. To give a simple example, if someone believes there is a demon in the woods, he will not go in it. As a result, he is not mauled by a bear. This is a survivability advantage even though (according to the atheist) there are no demons at all. Those who would believe in demons would be less likely to go into the woods than those who scoffed at the thought of demons. So evolution doesn’t select for truth, but merely selects for that which allows survival.
And as Zilch said, as long as we are able to survive “you can believe just about anything.”
The Implications Regarding Suicide
So let us plug this concept back into the idea of our lives being meaningful. As I pointed out, according to evolution, belief that our lives are meaningful is a survivability advantage since virtually everyone (atheist or believer alike, but with the exception of true nihilists) says that their lives have meaning. The universality of this belief would require it to be an extremely STRONG survivability trait. That is, if it weren’t important to the survival of our species, we ought to see more people who did not have this trait. Since we don’t see that many, this trait (according to evolution) must be pretty darn important to have for survivability.
But just because we have the inborn desire to belief our lives are meaningful doesn’t make it so. All it means is that evolution selected it. This is why I said that meaning in evolution is nothing more than an opium to drug us into a state where we will not off ourselves. It is pretty obvious (again, due to the universality of the belief) that belief in a meaningful existence is necessary for survival, so not having that leads to death; the most obvious form of which would be suicide (as this is an internal trait—completely subjective—and therefore does not pit man verses the environment, or man verses beast, but simply man verses self).
Just so this point is clear, let me illustrate it with some syllogisms too:
1) Universal traits come about in evolution because that trait has a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
2) The belief in a meaningful life is universal.
Conclusion 1: The belief in a meaningful life provides a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
3) Converse of 1), traits that do not show up in an organism over time do not provide a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
4) The lack of belief in a meaningful life is virtually nonexistent.
Conclusion 2: The lack of belief in a meaningful life does not provide a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
5) Subjective concepts are internal to the organism.
6) Beliefs are subjective concepts.
Conclusion 3: Beliefs are internal to the organism.
7) The environment and predators typically only interact with the external changes to an organism (i.e., speed, strength, visual acuity, etc.)
8) Beliefs are internal to the organism.
Conclusion 4: The environment and predators will typically not interact with the beliefs of an organism.
9) Conclusion 2 restated: The lack of belief in a meaningful life does not provide a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
10) Conclusion 4 restated: The environment and predators typically only interact with the external changes to an organism.
Conclusion 5: The environment and predation are not the likely reason for why the lack of belief in a meaningful life does not provide a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
11) Suicides are typically driven by issues internal to the organism.
12) Suicides decrease the survivability advantage for the organism.
Conclusion 6: Suicides are a possible reason for the decrease of survivability of organisms due to internal issues.
13) Conclusion 2 restated: The lack of belief in a meaningful life does not provide a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
14) Conclusion 6 restated: Suicides are a possible reason for the decrease of the survivability of organisms due to internal issues.
Conclusion 7: It is possible that suicides are the reason that the lack of belief in a meaningful life does not provide a significant survivability advantage for the organism.
Now obviously given the above, suicide is the most likely explanation for why lack of belief in a meaningful existence has significant disadvantages over the belief that there is meaning in life. That is, the other possibilities for this belief being detrimental to the organism do not seem adequate to actually cause a decrease in survivability.
Again it should be pointed out that this does not prove that life is meaningful in reality; it merely says that the belief that life is meaningful grants a survivability advantage due to the fact there will be less likelihood of suicide under that position.
The Meaninglessness of the Subjective Meaning
Finally, I want to address the idea that Zilch has brought up repeatedly, namely that if something is meaningful for him then it really is meaningful. My argument is that subjective meaning is ultimately meaningless. To establish this claim, let me first draw out some further implications.
First, it is important to note that we need to view the system in its entirety. Zilch does not wish to do so, for he states (italics his):
And I differ with you, for the same reason: yes, the Universe as a whole has no meaning, just as the Universe as a whole is not alive. But there are parts of the Universe that are alive, and have meaning, because they have evolved.And:
So you are saying that if the universe as a whole has no meaning, then no part of the universe can have meaning? That doesn't make sense- the universe as a whole is not iron or green or alive, but parts of it are iron or green or alive, no? Again, you are assuming that "meaning" is some sort of primal quality, like the laws of physics, and if the universe as a whole cannot be described as being "meaningful", then no part of it can be "meaningful" either.So it is clear that Zilch is trying to compartmentalize the idea that on the whole the universe is meaningless, but in part it is meaningful. This meaning is (as established above) subjective meaning, not derived from the universe itself but rather an artifact of evolution.
The problem with Zilch’s concept is that we must view the universe as whole to determine whether our subjective meanings are actually meaningful or if they are merely delusional. To give a specific example of why this is important, consider the following analogy.
A man is walking down the street when he sees a car veer toward a group of deaf students. The man shouts out: “Get out of the way!” The deaf students do not hear him and are run over. Was the man’s warning in any way a meaningful warning?
No. The warning did not change the outcome at all. It had no effect on the course of events in the slightest. Seen in terms of the system as a whole, the man’s shout was completely irrelevant and therefore meaningless.
In the same way, an atheist decides that he wants to live for as long as he can, and he claims that this gives meaning to his life. But does it really do so? Even if he extends the length of his days, the end result of death is inevitable. It cannot be stopped forever. And furthermore, the end is identical regardless of how many days the person lives. In other words, for all the struggle for life that the atheist goes through, it changes nothing. It is as meaningless as shouting out a warning to deaf students because the end result is the same.
Those who are dead are dead regardless of the lives they lived. Whether one is a murderer or a virtuous saint makes no difference. Whether one lives ten minutes or a hundred thirty years makes no difference. Death is the great equalizer: all become identical in the grave.
Therefore, no matter what meaning you manufacture in your life, it is irrelevant.
One Final Word
Since Zilch is so adamant that I must be forcing theism into my arguments, I encourage all to examine again the basis of my arguments. The basis of subjective meaning is found in Zilch’s own words, not in theism. The basis of the suicide theory is found in the proposed concepts of evolution, not in theism. The basis of the meaninglessness of subjective choices is found in the fact that life does not extend forever, not in theism.
My arguments at no point smuggle in any God concepts at all. They are, in fact, intentionally devoid of them. These are not ideas that I believe in, because I do not hold to the presuppositions required to believe them. However, atheists do; yet despite this they do not wish to believe what their presuppositions would lead them to.
Rather than me inserting God concepts, it is the atheist who, faced with this philosophy, must steal from the Christian worldview in order to avoid the consequences. The atheist must assert that despite all evidence to the contrary, their sheer force of will is sufficient to establish real meaning. They have to ignore the fact that their idea of meaning is impotent. But it is not so much that they must ignore this, it is the very nature of how they must vehemently argue for their meaning that gives away the fact that they are smuggling in concepts.
The theist has reasons for defending meaning in the universe, not the atheist. But the atheist wants that meaning, so they hijack it without establishing it within their own worldview. The result is that atheistic meaning is a house of cards, a stolen concept devoid of a foundation.
"So evolution doesn’t select for truth, but merely selects for that which allows survival."
ReplyDeleteBefore some dim-witted Darwinist states that truth IS a survival value, the above statement should be elaborated:
1.) As Peter showed in the example, truth value isn't always an selective advantage.
2.) In a non-teleological process such as neo-Darwinism, it is hard to imagine that anything would be produced in which there is the telos of truth-value, OR to the degree to which there actually is truth-value is at best INSCRUTABLE.
"So on the one hand, our beliefs come via evolution, but on the other hand they don’t because we can now deviate from the path of evolution."
This is the classic Dawkins assertion. Unfortunately, it commits the self-excepting fallacy. It assumes a third-person objective view of oneself. In a deterministic system such as materialism, there is no room for such a view.
It does not follow from the inevitability of death that an atheist must be a nihilist. People have a capacity to forget about their own mortality and focus on the tasks at hand, seeking what little control and happiness they can wrest from the world. But it would be an interesting research project to ask atheists on their deathbeds whether they are afraid.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are many problems with William Lane Craig's theology and apologetics, his lecture "Absurdity of Life Without God" is BRILLIANT!!! It's a MASTERPIECE. Here's a link to either a video or audio version. It's MUST hear lecture.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hisdefense.org/OnlineLectures/tabid/136/Default.aspx
Dmitry said:
ReplyDelete---
It does not follow from the inevitability of death that an atheist must be a nihilist.
---
Of course. Atheists are always free to be inconsistent if they want to be. And they are.
Dmitry said:
---
People have a capacity to forget about their own mortality and focus on the tasks at hand, seeking what little control and happiness they can wrest from the world.
---
Which is one of my points. People can ignore reality and pretend whatever they want to pretend in order to survive. Again, that is not in dispute. The point is that if one wishes to remain consistent with atheism, then one cannot willy-nilly "make up" meaning for ones life. There needs to be a basis for this.
Given that Zilch has already said his basis for meaning is due to evolved concepts, and yet that is most certainly not an indication of whether it is true or not, then atheists have a problem. They either must admit they are inconsistent (which begs the question as to why anyone would want to purposely embrace that sort of inconsistency) or else they must face the actual reality of what their philosophy entails (which begs the question as to why anyone would want to purposely embrace that sort of consistency).
Dmitry said:
---
But it would be an interesting research project to ask atheists on their deathbeds whether they are afraid.
---
It might be interesting in the abstract, but such is nonessential to my argument.
I come late to this lengthy and lengthy debate, so if I go over something that has already been settled, just tell me. I also believe that I've lost the point of Zilch's argument, the part where Peter is interjecting theism into an atheist point of view. Zilch, care to explain exactly how he is doing that?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that finding meaning in life, as much as it is certainly subjective, is an altogether illusory enterprise for the atheist. Whatever meaning you think you derive and enjoy from life is self-generated. If I understand you correctly, you concede that it is self-generated, but that since we are evolved beings with a likewise evolved ability to self-generate meaning in life, that self-generated meaning is real.
Two mistakes with this line of thinking:
One, self-generated meaning is, again, illusory. It doesn't exist; not even in your mind. Rather, you only feel as if you have meaning in life.
Happiness, obligation, a pleasant experience, whatever--all are the result of firings of the neurons in your brain. You may hold that they are aspects of evolved life forms, but why should that be acceptable? To have these feelings has no purpose, evolutionarily or otherwise. The best you could say is that you have these feelings and you ascribe some meaning to life because of them. That, however, makes even less sense. Feelings are just feelings; they don't have any meaning. The feeling of joy at getting married is qualitatively no different than depression to the point of suicide (in reference to the post).
Which means, two, you have lost the ability to argue that anything is real or objective. Everything boils down relative to one's own perception, which means that if Peter believes in the existence of God, then that is his perception of things, and you have no right to dispute that, since your perception cannot be better than his.
So why argue for atheism? By doing so, you assume that which you cannot prove anyway, as all is a matter of perception on your part, and theists perceive differently. I neither see a defense of atheism nor a positive case for atheism (same difference), which entails you showing evidence that God does not exist (curious that you still ask for evidence for theism). But alas, according to your reasoning, don't need evidence to believe something like atheism. You just do.
Well, sounds like the kind of thing atheists accuse theists of doing. /smirk
wow! BRILLIANT! i can sense you have loftiness of views and imagination on matters of God's existence & non existence. this kind of discussion makes each and everyone of us a unique individual basing on what we believe, whether or not there is a God. what is noteworthy here is developing in us Respect for what we believe in.
ReplyDeletehttps://wisdomoftheworld.com/index.php
Peter- thanks for having obviously put a lot of time and effort into your reply. I appreciate being taken seriously, and I will do the same for you.
ReplyDeleteI'll start with a minor point from the beginning of your post- you say:
Zilch’s main tactic has been to claim that I’ve been smuggling in theistic concepts when determining how an atheist ought to act. I pointed out the irony of this since Zilch also stated that what I had said about nihilism fit with Sartre (is this a tacit admission that Sartre was a closet theist?).
Yes, that has been my main tactic, and as I hope to show, it is justified. And don't forget that I already replied about Sartre:
While I don't know why Sartre came to the conclusions he did, I suspect that you might be right: he, too, was either smuggling God into his viewpoint, or was hoping for something more out of life. Of course, the fact that he had a rather strange upbringing, and was sick his whole life, probably had an influence on his character too. In any case, I don't take him as a role model; and while I consider him a great novelist, I don't subscribe to his philosophy. In the same way, I imagine that you might agree with Martin Luther about a lot of things, but not necessarily with his idea that Jews should be banished and witches tortured.
Just as Sartre's nihilism does not demonstrate that atheism necessarily logically implies nihilism, Luther's antisemitism does not demonstrate that theism necessarily logically implies antisemitism, so there's no "irony" here. But to keep things simple, in light of the fact that there are both theistic and atheistic exceptions to what Peter and I are claiming as parts of our belief systems, perhaps we should remind ourselves that we can only claim, strictly speaking, to be representing our personal viewpoints- even if many (or most) theists would agree with your, and many (or most) atheists would agree with my, respective characterizations of our viewpoints. Fair enough?
Moving on- If I have understood you correctly, your basic argument could be expressed thus: "Since, in the atheist viewpoint, all meaning is subjective and transitory, then life must logically be meaningless for atheists; and if atheists were to behave consistently with their beliefs, they would commit suicide". Is this a fair representation? My basic argument is this: "You have been smuggling theistic arguments into your view of what it must be like for atheists in the guise of things in which theists believe, but atheists don't; and you mistakenly conclude that the lack of these things must logically drive us to despair." So far, so good?
You have assumed the existence (for atheists as well as theists) of several different pairs of opposites, including real/imaginary, meaningful/meaningless, purposeful/purposeless, and value/no value. But the core of your argument has been about the contrasts objectivity/subjectivity and eternal/transitory. I'd like to consider eternal/transitory first, since it seems simpler to me.
You say, that since for us life is not eternal, it is meaningless. This is particularly clear in this story from your current post:
A man is walking down the street when he sees a car veer toward a group of deaf students. The man shouts out: “Get out of the way!” The deaf students do not hear him and are run over. Was the man’s warning in any way a meaningful warning?
No. The warning did not change the outcome at all. It had no effect on the course of events in the slightest. Seen in terms of the system as a whole, the man’s shout was completely irrelevant and therefore meaningless.
In the same way, an atheist decides that he wants to live for as long as he can, and he claims that this gives meaning to his life. But does it really do so? Even if he extends the length of his days, the end result of death is inevitable. It cannot be stopped forever. And furthermore, the end is identical regardless of how many days the person lives. In other words, for all the struggle for life that the atheist goes through, it changes nothing. It is as meaningless as shouting out a warning to deaf students because the end result is the same.
So you are saying that meaning does not exist if it does not last forever. Again: that's what you believe, not what I believe. As I've said, for me, meaning is an evolved entity. It has not always been here, and when all life is gone, it will cease to exist. That does not mean that it does not exist now. You might just as well claim that for the atheist, since life does not last forever, that life does not exist. For that matter, rocks, stars, and puppies do not exist, since they do not last forever either. Or perhaps they are illusions: fake meaning, fake rocks, fake stars, fake puppies, fake life. Again, you are assuming the truth of your worldview in saying how things must be for us. Unless you can prove that God exists, I will continue to regard meaning and puppies as real, even if they are transitory. If that's not real enough for you, that's fine, but it doesn't affect how I perceive reality.
About subjectivity and objectivity: first, let me remind you that I do not believe in the existence of absolute objectivity in descriptions of the real world. You said:
The problem with this is that by definition objective truths do not depend on the subject. If something is subjectively true, it depends on the subject for its truth value; if something is objectively true, it is true regardless of what any subject thinks, feels, or imagines.
I replied:
The problem with this definition of "objective" and "subjective" truth is that it renders just about everything subjective: only in the realm of systems of formal logic, such as mathematics, could something be said to be objectively true. Anything else: descriptions of the orbit of the Moon, evolutionary theory, my taste in music, is all subjective, because all of these things are dependent upon what someone thinks. If a "truth" is a description or model of some part of the Universe, it is necessarily imperfect, and thus subjective. So this definition isn't really useful.
If you loosen the definition such that some descriptions of the way things are, for instance "the Moon exists", are accepted as being objective, you still have a continuum between objective and subjective. If I say "there's a big rock in the sky", is that still objectively true? What if I say "the vaults of heaven are glorified by the passage of a silvery orb"? It's easy to forget that "truth" is not "the way things are", but a description or model of the way things are, which is more or less accurate and more or less subjective. The real world is the only instantiation of "the way it is".
If you still insist upon a clean separation of "objective" and "subjective", consider this: Suppose I drop my ten-kilo sledge hammer on my toe. Hasn't happened yet, but it could. You would consider the fact that I dropped the hammer on my toe to be an "objective" truth, no? But consider what follows: the hammer insults my nerves, which send the bad news to my spinal chord, precipitating a reflex which jerks my foot away, alas, too late. The train of electrochemical impulses continues its way up to my brain, where it causes me to yell and feel pain, still before I'm conscious of what happened. After a long time (about half a second) I become aware of what I did, and grab my toe and hop around the workshop. At some point I reflect that it might have been a good idea to dry my hands after washing them so they wouldn't be so slippery, and feel like a fool for behaving so stupidly.
I imagine you would say that my feeling like a fool is "subjective". Pray tell, where in this train of events does "objective" become "subjective"? There is no line you can draw that is not arbitrary.
I realize perfectly that philosophers- and theologians- define "objective" and "subjective" differently, such that they can be cleanly separated. This, and similar definitions made without examining whether or not they can be usefully applied to the real world, is the reason that so much of philosophy ends up just being elegant constructions of words set to chasing their own tails, but not useful tools that can tell us anything.
I apologize for quoting so extensively, but this is the crux of our disagreement here, and you have not replied to it. You say things such as (from the current post):
I am most certainly NOT smuggling any theism into my statements at all. My argument has NOTHING to do with what I believe about the universe, and I can prove it by using Zilch’s own words here.
Zilch says: “There is meaning in the universe” but immediately backs away from that by saying “or rather many meanings.” But that, precisely, IS my point. There are many “meanings” that an atheist claims, yet none of them are objective. They do not transcend the individuals involved. Indeed, how could they? They remain totally and completely subjective. And if they are totally and completely subjective, then this is exactly what I claimed in my very thesis statement.
First of all, I did not "back away" from saying "there is meaning in the universe". I was simply trying to clarify what I meant. There is meaning in the universe in the same sense as there is life in the universe: the universe does contain meanings, and does contain living things, but it is not in its entirety meaningful or alive, any more than it is green or iron, even though there are green things and iron things in it.
More importantly: as I have said, by your definition, all meanings in my worldview are subjective. But I don't subscribe to your definition of objective and subjective, because it contains God. Here is a quote from you:
Within atheism, life is meaningless because the only thing that can give it meaning is the individuals who live their lives, and when they die all their meaning vanishes with them.
This differs from Christianity because for the Christian meaning in life does not come from our subjective assignment of meaning to it, but from God’s assigning meaning to it. While our lives are short and temporal, God is eternal.
So objective meaning, according to you, can only come from God. Naturally, under this definition, all meaning for atheists is "totally and completely subjective". But we're talking about how atheists look at things, not how you look at things, and the phrase "totally and completely subjective" doesn't have any referents for me; so you can't judge what things are like for me using your definition.
About the is/ought distinction. You said:
Since we've also evolved intelligence, then we're able to separate the is/ought and look at the world and see there is no reason to live.
I replied:
That might be true if one presupposes an eternal Ought. But since, in the atheist view, such a thing does not exist, but rather all "oughts" are evolved entities, then this cannot be the position of the naturalist, but only the imagination of someone who already believes.
To which you said:
[...]Indeed, my point was that there is no ought at all from the atheist perspective. That’s why you cannot derive one from what is.
This is simply not true, and not what I said. Of course there are "oughts" for atheists: if there weren't, we'd all be out there knocking down old ladies in the street. We just don't have absolute oughts. It's you guys who believe in those, although I've never heard them described unambiguously. This is hardly surprising, given the often vague, self-contradictory, and evolving versions of "oughts" in the Bible. If I remember my history, there has been a conflict or two over exactly what God wants us to do, but that's another topic...
About your list of syllogisms that supposedly show the fitness value of believing that one's life has meaning, even if it doesn't: while it's not inconceivable that such a delusion would evolve if it were necessary, you have not demonstrated that it is necessary. A more plausible alternative explanation is that we find meaning in our lives because there is meaning in our lives. Since I don't believe in God or any other source of "true" or "eternal" meaning, I'm inclined to regard my feeling that my life has meaning, however transitory, as being real. And unless you can demonstrate otherwise, your just-so story about the evolution of a delusion doesn't seem very likely on the face of it. But there's no proving it either way, is there?
In conclusion: I still find that you are looking at my worldview from the standpoint of what you believe to be true about the world, not from what I believe, and thus I do not accept your conclusion that atheism logically entails nihilism. If you can show me any inconsistency in my worldview, using my definitions and not yours, I'd be glad to consider it.
Letitia- I hope that this answers some of your questions as well. But you also ask:
So why argue for atheism? By doing so, you assume that which you cannot prove anyway, as all is a matter of perception on your part, and theists perceive differently.
I argue for atheism, despite the fact that I cannot prove it, because I just like arguing, and because I am interested in why people believe as they do, and in finding common ground for coexistence- as an atheist, I'm in a despised minority, at least when I'm in the US. And although perceptions differ, some fit the world better than others: your perception that the world is round is more accurate than that of the ancients who believed the world was flat. In the same way, I believe that my perception that there is no God is more accurate than that of believers who believe in God. But I might be wrong.
cheers from starry Vienna, zilch
Just food for thought -
ReplyDeleteThe universe is made of, say, 10 parts. The meaning content of the entire thing is zero.
However, two parts contain meaning, to a value of 1.
Zilch would have us believe that 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 0.
Makes perfect sense.
Nice equation, rhology. But did I say that the "meaning content" of the Universe is zero? I did not: I said that the Universe as a whole is not meaningful, just as the Universe as a whole is not green or iron or alive, even though some of its contents are green or iron or alive. It's not the same thing: either you have misunderstood me or are deliberately misrepresenting me.
ReplyDeleteThe "as a whole" is the final 0.
ReplyDeleteTo where did those two "1"s disappear?
You tell me, Rhology- it's your equation, not mine, and it has zero information content.
ReplyDeleteThe universe is made of, say, 10 parts. The Universe as a whole is not iron.
However, two parts contain iron, to a value of 1.
Rhology would have us believe that 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 0.
Makes perfect sense.
Or...
ReplyDelete"The universe as a whole contains no iron."
But a few parts contain iron.
Thus...
Perhaps I'd better define what I mean by "meaning", and you had better define what you mean by "meaning", before we do any more adding and subtracting of "meaning" units.
ReplyDelete"Meaning" is of course a slippery word, with several different but related senses: one is like "explanation", as in "the meaning of a word". Another sense is like "intent", as in "well-meaning". Yet another is something like "how something fits in with some scheme of things: plans or desires or worldviews or suchlike", as in "the meaning of her promotion, of his marriage". Closely related is the general sense of "having value or being good for somebody".
But in order for there to be a meaning, in whatever sense, there must be a meaner. And while I suppose one could say the whole Universe does have a "meaning" in the sense that it "fits in with someone's plans", and thus that the whole Universe has had "meaning" ever since meaners have evolved in it, it is clearer to say that "someone holds the Universe to be meaningful". Things don't possess the meanings that someone assigns to them in the sense of getting something added to them; meanings are only present in the meaner. Likewise, although I see an apple, the apple does not have my "seeing".
So in this sense, meaning can only be held by a meaner. And because the Universe as a whole is not a meaner, since the Universe as a whole is not a living thing, and has no mind of its own, although it contains living things with minds, the Universe, while it means something to me and others, has no meaning of its own. This might sound idiosyncratic, but this is what I mean when I say that "the Universe as a whole has no meaning".
If you insist on saying that the Universe as a whole is meaningful, because it has meaners in it, that's fine with me, and then I will concede your math. But then you will be disagreeing with Peter, who says that there is no meaning for us atheists. That's fine with me too.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteI will plan a more formal response to your lengthy response in the near future. One thing that stood out to me in your interaction with Rhology is your statement:
---
Things don't possess the meanings that someone assigns to them in the sense of getting something added to them; meanings are only present in the meaner.
---
Once again, I point out that this is EXACTLY what I argued in my thesis statement. That is: "Within atheism, life is meaningless because the only thing that can give it meaning is the individuals who live their lives, and when they die all their meaning vanishes with them."
Again, you've agreed thus far that atheistic meaning is subjective (regardless of what kind of distinctions you wish to put on the objective/subjective "scale" that you use), and you've agreed that meaning is not found within objects but instead with then the "meaner." By logical deduction, this must mean that the meaning ceases to exist the moment that the "meaner" ceases to exist, since the objects themselves have no inherent meaning.
In other words, exactly what I've been saying.
I wasn't disagreeing with Peter. In fact, I haven't made any statement at all; I've been taking one part of your position and contrasting it with another.
ReplyDeletePeter- take your time. I have a day job too. Meanwhile, I'll just briefly comment on the last thing you said:
ReplyDeleteAgain, you've agreed thus far that atheistic meaning is subjective (regardless of what kind of distinctions you wish to put on the objective/subjective "scale" that you use), and you've agreed that meaning is not found within objects but instead with then the "meaner." By logical deduction, this must mean that the meaning ceases to exist the moment that the "meaner" ceases to exist, since the objects themselves have no inherent meaning.
In other words, exactly what I've been saying.
And I haven't claimed any different. We must keep in mind, however, that to say that "life has no meaning" for atheists, under the definition I've just presented, does not mean that I cannot find life meaningful: it simply means that life, like all other things I find meaningful, doesn't acquire anything as a result of my finding meaning in it: the meaning is all in me.
So when I say "life is meaningful" or "life has meaning", that means that I entertain a certain feeling about life. From my point of view, of course, that is the only way in which life can be said to have meaning: for myself, and for you as well, since I don't believe in a God who entertains meanings about life. I don't know whether there is any general agreement among theists whether or not God's entertaining meanings about life adds something to life, in a way that our meanings do not: I mean, of course, in addition to all the things God does that affect life in various ways. But it's an academic question to me.
In any case, where I part ways with your presentation of my worldview is in your assumption that our lack of eternal and objective meaning, neither of which we believe in, must logically drive us to despair. As I've said, merely having the whole Universe is enough for me.
cheers from rainy Vienna, zilch.
P.S. Rhology: thanks for dropping by again. You forced me to clean up my definitions, something I should have done before. And I know you weren't disagreeing with Peter: you have not yet taken a stand on the last paragraph of my previous post.
So you are saying that if the universe as a whole has no meaning, then no part of the universe can have meaning? That doesn't make sense- the universe as a whole is not iron or green or alive, but parts of it are iron or green or alive, no? Again, you are assuming that "meaning" is some sort of primal quality, like the laws of physics, and if the universe as a whole cannot be described as being "meaningful", then no part of it can be "meaningful" either.
ReplyDeleteAs Rhology has sort of pointed out mathematically, Zilch made a rather sloppy semantic error. If he wants to compare the presence of iron in the universe to the presence of meaning, it would look like this:
(1) The universe contains meaning.
(2) But the universe in toto is not meaning.
(1') The universe contains iron.
(2') But the universe in toto is not iron.
Which is true, but irrelevant to the thesis, which is:
(3) The universe contains meaning.
(4) But the universe in toto is meaningless.
The corollary of which would be:
(3') The universe contains iron.
(4') But the universe in toto is ironless.
The obvious problem for Zilch is that he has conceded (4), which by corollary means he has conceded (4'); but (4') contradicts (3'), which by corollary means that (4) contradicts (3). And unfortunately for Zilch, (3) is his thesis of subjective meaning. So he cannot maintain that the universe in toto is meaningless, yet that it still contains meaning. By definition, the negation of meaning (ie, "meaningless") precludes any meaning whatsoever.
Now, he has tried to say that the universe in toto is not meaningless after all, because it does in fact contain subjective meaning. Thus, the universe in toto is subjectively meaningful. However, he has continued to cede that the universe is intrinsically or objectively meaningless. Thus, he would say that (3) uses "meaning" in a different sense to (4), and so no contradiction exists. Fair enough. The universe contains subjective meaning; but the universe in toto is objectively meaningless. Different senses; so noncontradiction is not violated.
The problem now for Zilch is that if he has indeed conceded that the universe is objectively meaningless, he has acknowledged that it contains no objective, no intrinsic meaning. In which case, the theist can ask: what does it actually mean for something to be subjectively meaningful, yet objectively meaningless?
Objective meaning refers to meaning as it actually is. Subjective meaning refers to meaning as we perceive it. Now, don't we say that someone who perceives something which isn't there is in error—and possibly delusional? Thus, is not someone who sees meaning where there is none at least in error, and possibly delusional? And if so, is not Zilch's perception of meaning where he himself admits that there actually is none not erroneous and possibly delusional?
In other words, isn't Zilch's position just a convoluted admission that atheists are, to use that elegant internet catchphrase, wrong and stupid?
Regards,
Bnonn
Bnonn- I admit it: I was sloppy. I said as much to Rhology, and have tried to clean up my definitions. I must point out, however, that Peter and Roger have been just as guilty as I of not clarifying what they mean by "meaning", and have fallen into the same sloppiness of not differentiating the meaning held by a meaner and the meaning considered to be intrinsic to that which is perceived as "having" meaning.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I don't believe that meaning exists in the objects which are said to "have" meaning, but rather in the minds of the meaners. This seems fairly obvious to me: a five euro bill might mean a pizza to me, but there is no pizza in the five euro bill: just the thought of a pizza in my mind. In other words, meaning is the perception of a (possible) relationship.
You say:
The problem now for Zilch is that if he has indeed conceded that the universe is objectively meaningless, he has acknowledged that it contains no objective, no intrinsic meaning. In which case, the theist can ask: what does it actually mean for something to be subjectively meaningful, yet objectively meaningless?
What it means is exactly what I just said: meaning is in the mind of the beholder, and nowhere else. If you choose to call that "subjective" meaning, that's your privelege- as I've said, however, I find this definition of "subjective" to be rather useless, since it renders all meanings subjective. For me as an atheist, of course.
Objective meaning refers to meaning as it actually is. Subjective meaning refers to meaning as we perceive it. Now, don't we say that someone who perceives something which isn't there is in error—and possibly delusional?
Meaning "as it actually is" doesn't mean anything to me. How could meaning be something other than what it "actually is"? Meaning is a perception- if it is something else, please tell me what it is. Thus, by your definition, all meanings are subjective, so the opposition objective/subjective is meaningless to me.
As far as a perception of something that isn't there being "in error or delusional" goes, consider this: someone whistles a tune which I happily recognize as being a song I heard in my childhood. Is my recognition "in error or delusional"? It is "not there" in the tune which is whistled, but is part of the meaning I assign to it, based on my history, perceptions, feelings, etc. Exactly the same is true of any other meaning I hold about the world.
In conclusion, you say:
In other words, isn't Zilch's position just a convoluted admission that atheists are, to use that elegant internet catchphrase, wrong and stupid?
Up until now, we've had a fairly civilized discourse here. I admit that I sometimes also resort to sarcasm, but I've been pretty nice in this discussion, have I not? I would appreciate if you would show me the same courtesy.
cheers from rainy Vienna, zilch
I don't believe I was sloppy at all, Zilch.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument at this point has devolved to a particular state. Namely, you accept all criticisms being lodged against your worldview: The lack of objective meaning, purpose, morality, value and so on with regards to the universe - all this plus an utter lack of hope for their future introduction, along with any other hope a theistic worldview offers. All you have is subjectivity (X is good or bad, or means this or that, or has this or that purpose, etc, to you, because you say it does) and opiates (I derive a carnal pleasure from this or that), and frankly the two can be collapsed into a single thing for most purposes (X is good because I like that, X has this purpose because I like that, etc). Even charges of inconsistency are primarily being answered with a response of 'From my perspective this is all I have so I don't care'.
Really, the argument at this point doesn't really look like an argument at all. To me (maybe others, who knows) it really looks like you're trying to come up with a way to describe your worldview that isn't downright absurd, unattractive, or ultimately inconsistent in practice. You may as well just say 'I believe what I do because I do and it pleases me' and leave it at that. After all, you're just arguing for fun.
Incidentally, thank you Annoyed Pinoy for the William Lane Craig video link. I have growing admiration for the man, and he does drive the point home powerfully there.
Forgive the mispost, that was Roger before. Some account mistake just went on.
ReplyDeleteHey, Roger! In my opinion, you were just as sloppy as I, in not defining what you meant by "meaning", and assuming without demonstration that there exists such a thing as "objective" meaning. Could you be so kind and define "meaning" for me, since I have also tried to define it?
ReplyDeleteYou say:
I think the argument at this point has devolved to a particular state. Namely, you accept all criticisms being lodged against your worldview: The lack of objective meaning, purpose, morality, value and so on with regards to the universe - all this plus an utter lack of hope for their future introduction, along with any other hope a theistic worldview offers.
You are right: I don't believe in what you call "objective" meaning, purpose, or morality. But while you might call that "accepting criticism" from your point of view, it is not "accepting criticism" from my point of view, but merely defining what I believe and don't believe. Would you call it "accepting criticism" if you admitted you didn't believe in unicorns? And you're right; I have an "utter lack" of hope (so far) in what the theistic worldview offers. That's because I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in the things the theistic worldview purports to offer. That does not mean that I do not have hope at all, as I have already said.
All you have is subjectivity (X is good or bad, or means this or that, or has this or that purpose, etc, to you, because you say it does) and opiates (I derive a carnal pleasure from this or that), and frankly the two can be collapsed into a single thing for most purposes (X is good because I like that, X has this purpose because I like that, etc). Even charges of inconsistency are primarily being answered with a response of 'From my perspective this is all I have so I don't care'.
In other words, all I have is the whole wonderfully complex Universe, and nothing else: no magic, no absolutes, no eternal life. I can well appreciate that my world looks paltry in comparison with yours, but I'm happy with it, and I don't believe in, or feel a need to believe in, all that extra stuff you claim to have, that I don't believe you have. But as I've said, I'm open to evidence: I want to know as much as possible about the way things are in the world, and if there is evidence that God exists, I'd be very happy to hear it. So far, though, I haven't heard anything convincing.
Really, the argument at this point doesn't really look like an argument at all. To me (maybe others, who knows) it really looks like you're trying to come up with a way to describe your worldview that isn't downright absurd, unattractive, or ultimately inconsistent in practice.
You're right: it's not an argument. At least, it's not the argument we started with, about atheists logically having to despair: it is simply my exposition of my worldview. And while you have been trying mightily to make it look absurd and unattractive, which it might well seem to you, it does not seem that way to me. And you have not succeeded in showing how I am being inconsistent in not wanting to commit suicide given my point of view, which is what Peter originally claimed. If you can show me where I'm inconsistent in not wanting to commit suicide, please do so. I promise I won't hold you responsible for my untimely demise.
cheers from chilly rainy Vienna, zilch
"Would you call it "accepting criticism" if you admitted you didn't believe in unicorns?"
ReplyDeleteAll this only reinforces what I've said - there's no arguing going on here. Every charge made, really, has stuck. It's now a game of making it sound nice.
"In other words, all I have is the whole wonderfully complex Universe"
It's not 'wonderful'. It's not even 'complex'. Not in any substantial way. These are all subjective calls for you. 'You think the universe is wonderful', which melts to 'You like the universe' or 'You like your idea of the universe'.
If I say your universe is meager, dark, and dank, you can't even disagree with force. At most you can argue 'I see it differently'. And that's true within the atheist framework itself.
"but I'm happy with it"
And in the end, that's all that matters. No one has denied you're happy. Hell, it's been repeatedly asserted that chances are you ARE happy, for various reasons.
As for convincing you that God exists, no one here has tried. At most it's been pointed out that recognizing the possibility of being wrong would offer you some hope all on its own. But by and large, the attention here has been given to pointing out the atheist worldview, and what is entailed by it. Very fish-in-a-barrel.
"If you can show me where I'm inconsistent in not wanting to commit suicide, please do so."
Who's made that claim? Again - it's been asserted that you're likely happy. You have to be, especially since happiness is the only consideration for you. If you weren't happy with your worldview, you either would no longer have it, or you wouldn't be here to discuss it. Paul C ceded as much without provocation.
You seem to think that the standing goal here is to convince you of something. Really, that's not what's going on, at least with me or (as near as I can tell) with others. It's demonstrating what an atheistic worldview necessitates, what constitutes inconsistencies among atheists who make certain claims or use certain language (use the language of objective good and evil, wrong or right, value, meaning, etc), why an atheistic worldview would in a practical sense necessitate inconsistency or distraction from what's actually entailed by the worldview, etc. No one is denying that you can outwardly maintain adherence to your worldview and find pleasure - again, what's been said is we can expect you are finding pleasure, because pleasure's all you've got, and requires the utmost focus (even if it entails inconsistency).
Let me put it another way. You said you're arguing because you just plain enjoy arguing. But there's no argument here - not even an argument to convince you that you're wrong, where if you only hold out and maintain you're right, you somehow win. Right now, everything that's been asserted has been essentially accepted by you - as said, all you're doing is trying to put a smiley face on it all. But at the same time, you're just demonstrating the paucity of the worldview, and the sort of self-deceptions and inconsistencies the view alternately welcomes or demands. So long as you're happy, nothing else matters - and that's not a personal criticism. It's what your worldview requires.
It's just not interesting anymore. So respectfully, I leave it to Peter Pike and the others, if they care to continue. For me, it's just flogging a dead horse. "Yes, there's no meaning or value or morality or anything of objective worth in my universe, but I'll stick with it until the opiates stop working. In which case I either eat a bullet or drop the worldview, and this is only a possibility if I dwell on it too long which I said would entail a Sartre-esque view, or if I'm consistent in my behavior and thoughts which the worldview strongly encourages me not to be."
I have quite a lot of disagreement with pretty much everything written here, from Peter's original reasoning all the way through to Roger's bizarre postscript. If I can muster the enthusiasm I'll write exactly why, but for now here's a puzzle for me - why deaf students?
ReplyDeleteA man is walking down the street when he sees a car veer toward a group of students. The man shouts out: “Get out of the way!” The students do not hear him and are run over. Was the man’s warning in any way a meaningful warning?
According to Peter's logic, the man's warning is still not meaningful since it "did not change the outcome at all." So the addition of deafness into the equation is wholly unnecessary - so why does he introduce it?
Regardless of the reason why, its introduction tragically undermines the entire argument. According to Peter, meaning is based solely on the outcomes a belief or action generates - yet the man shouting the warning has no idea if the students are deaf or not. So the "meaning" - according to Peter - is wholly dependent on the perceptions of the students - essentially, it is dependent on their subjective perception of that meaning.
And this, of course, is exactly what Zilch and I are arguing.
Thanks, Paul. It hadn't struck me until you pointed it out how peculiar the stipulation of deafness is in Peter's argument. But you're right- it rather tends to support our idea that meaning is subjective, and in the mind of the meaner. Not that you can prove anything with fairytales.
ReplyDeleteRoger- I'm sorry this is no longer interesting to you. To tell you the truth, I'm also beginning to think that we are all just repeating ourselves and talking past one another too, but I'm willing to go on for a bit, in the hopes that we can at least understand one another's positions a little better.
You say:
Every charge made, really, has stuck. It's now a game of making it sound nice.
Well, you can call it "charges sticking", but as I said, for me it's just "defining what I believe in". And I'm not trying to "make my worldview sound nice"- I don't have to: it is nice- for me. You and Peter, on the other hand, are continually finding disparaging adjectives to describe how I "must" see life as an atheist: full of opiates, carnal pleasures, hopelessness, meaninglessness, nihilism, in a Universe neither wonderful nor complex...
I asked you: "If you can show me where I'm inconsistent in not wanting to commit suicide, please do so."
You replied:
Who's made that claim?
Peter did: it's his whole thesis here, that suicide is the only logically consistent thing atheists can do. He said it many times, in many ways- here it is in its pure form, from near the beginning of our discussion:
It is logically inconsistent with your worldview to not commit suicide.
Roger, you say:
Right now, everything that's been asserted has been essentially accepted by you - as said, all you're doing is trying to put a smiley face on it all. But at the same time, you're just demonstrating the paucity of the worldview, and the sort of self-deceptions and inconsistencies the view alternately welcomes or demands.
Yes, as I said, I "accept" your assertions that I don't believe in all those absolutes you guys do. And as I said, I don't have to "try" to put a smiley face on it- for me, the Universe is not "meager, dark, and dank", and you are in no position to say it "must" be for me. As far as "paucity" goes, that's your view, not mine: I live in the same Universe you do. And you keep going on about my self-deceptions, and inconsistencies, but have yet to provide a single example from within my viewpoint, which, as I must remind you for the nth time, is what we are debating here.
Perhaps a story will make my viewpoint a little clearer, a counterexample to Peter's story about the unfortunate deaf students. A hungry kid finds an apple tree with one apple in it. She reaches up, picks the apple, and starts eating. A man comes along and says to the kid: "What's the point of eating that apple? You know that the apple will not last forever, and then you will be hungry again. The only logical thing to do is to stop eating that apple right now!" The kid says "no way- I like this apple!" She does not stop eating the apple until it's gone, and the man wanders off, muttering about how logically inconsistent the kid's behavior was.
Not that you can prove anything with fairytales.
cheers from cool Vienna, zilch
In other words, Paul C. & Zilch, my analogy perfectly reflects your views.
ReplyDeleteThat is, you've been arguing for subjectivity, and I used an analogy that by your own words incorporates subjectivity to prove that when there is no effect there is no meaning.
You are yet again so focused on assuming that I must be inserting my own view that you're completely missing the fact that you just admitted my analogy was right on. I am critiquing YOUR view, after all.
Therefore, my analogy (which coheres to your stated beliefs, and which points out the futility of them) was exactly what it ought to have been.
I'll also point out for Zilch that I've not committed the same fallacy that you have done, as my use of the term "meaning" has been consistent throughout.
And while it ought not need to be pointed out, the story I used was simply an analogy that was actually backed up by argumentation. In fact, out of a total of 2,605 words, it constitued a whopping 49 words (89 if you include the summary paragraph that related it to my complete argument). That's at most only 3% of what I wrote anyway. So even if you were successful in debunking my analogy (which you haven't been), you'd still have to deal with my argument, which you've not bothered to get around to yet.
ReplyDeletePeter - your point, as always, is not exactly closely argued - which makes it difficult to respond without posting an essay. Unfortunately there are other demands on my time; and if you don't think I've demonstrated that your analogy fails (for precisely the reason that it does not reflect what Zilch and I actually believe) then there's little point in me writing such an essay, is there?
ReplyDeleteAnd - lest you think that I'm tripping myself up, as you are wont to do - I should point out that my initial point is that a) your definition of "meaning" as "something which has an effect on the world" is nonsensical, and b) the only way you can make the analogy sound even partway convincing is by arbitrarily making the students deaf.
ReplyDeleteMy position is that meaning is internally generated, and that's all there is. The difference between us appears to be that you would find that position to be insufficient reason to not kill yourself; but you don't seem to realise that's more of a comment on your personal resilience rather than my beliefs.
It's as if you were violently allergic to peanuts, but then tried to persuade me - on the basis of your experience - that if I were to eat peanuts, I would die. In short, it's a crap argument.
Paul C. said:
ReplyDelete---
My position is that meaning is internally generated, and that's all there is.
---
And my position is that that kind of "meaning" is irrelevant, pointless, and unmeaningful. I've made this clear from the get-go and I've actually argued for it rather than merely assert it. That you do not wish to pay attention to the argument doesn't make it go away.
On the other hand, you could try to convince me why anyone should care in the least about what your internally generated "meaning" is about anything. I, for one, don't care what you subjectively find meaningful in life. How could I? How could anyone other than you?
So all you're doing is handing me the argument while scrambling to try to make it LOOK like you're not. But anyone with a higher-than-room-temperature IQ here can plainly see that what your argument boils down to is simply this:
There is no point to the universe, no meaning to be found (just generated), no reason to do anything; but we will pretend there is.
And Zilch tried to compare my view to one of "fairytales"???
Finally, you said:
---
the only way you can make the analogy sound even partway convincing is by arbitrarily making the students deaf.
---
Not at all. I merely sought to provide a clear analogy to you in the latest post. I've already provided AN ARGUMENT that you've ignored, as well as several previous analogies you've likewised ignored.
All you have is "meaning is what I decide is meaningful" which mean, AS I'VE STATED ALL ALONG that meaning only extend through your subjectivity, and at the point you die that meaning ceases to exist. That meaning is not real meaning at all, for reasons I've already stated and for reasons that others have tried to elucidate for you too. You want your fairytale opium, a magic pill that lets you pretend you have a purpose in life. You have no rational basis for this decision; it is therefore an irrational decision.
All you have is "meaning is what I decide is meaningful" which mean, AS I'VE STATED ALL ALONG that meaning only extend through your subjectivity, and at the point you die that meaning ceases to exist. That meaning is not real meaning at all, for reasons I've already stated and for reasons that others have tried to elucidate for you too.
ReplyDeleteAs Zilch has I believe pointed out, that meaning is not real meaning under your definition of real meaning, which you have smuggled in from your theistic viewpoint. My definition of real meaning is the meaning that each person finds for themselves in the short space of their own lives. Whether that meaning ceases to exist upon their death is irrelevant, as you have not made a convincing argument that something must be eternal to have real meaning; indeed, as far as I can tell you have not so far provided a definition of what "real meaning" consists of. Could you do so now? Perhaps that would help your argument.
Peter, you say:
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Paul C. & Zilch, my analogy perfectly reflects your views.
No, your analogy does not perfectly reflect our views. This is how I parse your deaf-student analogy- please let me know if I have misunderstood you anywhere:
1) A man sees that a group of students is in danger from a car and shouts out a warning.
2) Unfortunately, this warning was not heeded by the students, because they were deaf and could not perceive it.
3) This warning changed nothing, and was therefore meaningless in this system/story.
4) In just the same way, since atheists do not live forever, the end result of all meanings in their lives is nothing. Therefore, their lives are meaningless.
I would agree with 1 to 3, with the minor proviso that the warning did have a personal meaning (unsuccessfully communicated) for the man shouting it, but 4 strikes me as not following logically. It's basically just another way of saying, as you've often said, "if something doesn't last forever, it is not meaningful". But that's simply your unsupported opinion, and I don't see how this analogy demonstrates that it is reasonable.
And Peter- you say that I "still haven't got around to my argument". What have I been doing here, then, pray tell? I responded point by point to what you posted. I don't know what I can say that I haven't already said. You have yet to demonstrate why I should commit suicide, given my beliefs, or how I have been inconsistent within my belief system.
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch
P.S. Peter- you just posted a new comment. You say that "anyone with a higher-than-room-temperature IQ [that's 25 in Europe- about the IQ of a chimp] here can plainly see that what your argument boils down to is simply this":
There is no point to the universe, no meaning to be found (just generated), no reason to do anything; but we will pretend there is.
*sigh* I think we've reached a dead end here. Do I really have to parse this too, to show how it is not representative of our viewpoint? One last time: no, the Universe as a whole has no point, but there are many beings within the Universe that do have points. There is meaning to be found: yes, it is "generated", but generated along with life itself, in the sense of having evolved: not here from the beginning, but developing through unimaginably long stretches of time into incomprehensibly complex forms: the greatest story ever told. No reason to do anything? I don't know about you, but I love life, and I find all kinds of reasons to do things. And I'm not pretending: this is my life, and I intend to live it as fully as I can.
cheers from greyskyed Vienna, zilch
I just saw your comment, Paul. Quite. I'll ask along with you: Peter, what is "real meaning"? Can you show that any kind of meaning exists, apart from the "meaning that each person finds for themselves in the short space of their own lives", as Paul put it?
ReplyDeletecheers from twilight Vienna, zilch
Zilch asked:
ReplyDelete---
Can you show that any kind of meaning exists, apart from the "meaning that each person finds for themselves in the short space of their own lives", as Paul put it?
---
This is a question that YOU must answer, Zilch. You, as an atheist, have to demonstrate "real meaning." I do not have to demonstrate real meaning in order to show you do not have real meaning.
You haven't even tried to exercize your burden of proof here. It's not encumbant upon me to prove a universal negative; it is sufficient for me to point out that you cannot offer a positive definition of meaning under atheism.
I've interacted with your views ad nauseum already. I've argued from your worldview repeatedly. The only thing I've not done is sipped your Kool-Aid and pretended that meaning that I invent is actually real.
So look at this logically. I've made claims about how the atheist views the universe (claims which you eventually agreed to). I made deductions based on those claims, and the deductions themselves are not in dispute. The only thing you disagree on is the final conclusion, not the method nor the starting premise.
I maintain that my argument is logically sound, and your bare assertion that you disagree with it is not sufficient to overrule it. You have to argue your position. You don't get a pass here.
So answer the question. If all meaning is subjective meaning that comes about due to evolutionary processes that have occured in an objectively non-meaningful universe, then in what possible sense could they actually be real?
They're only "real" in the sense that you can say, "I feel this way." But if you feel that there is a monster under your bed, that doesn't make it real. If you feel that your life is meaningful, that doesn't make it so.
And when you assert that the universe has no meaning in itself on the one hand, and then on the other hand assert that you still "find" meaning in it, then you are delusional. There's no way around this. You are seeking to ignore the implications of what you believe.
If you still insist that you are creating true meaning on your own, then please consider this before responding.
1) All meaning is subjective.
2) I do not perceive meaning in your worldview.
3) Therefore, according to me, you do not have any meaning at all.
How can you possibly refute this? Do you say:
4) "I have meaning for myself"
But if so, your meaning is only for you and it does not extend to me. I do not experience your experiences. The fact that you think you have meaning does not extend to my reality. Your reality is only yours, NOT MINE.
So your bare assertion that you have meaning cannot override my assertion that you do not have meaning. If I subjectively hold that you do not have meaning, and you subjectively hold that you do have meaning, who wins?
You have no objective meaning to reference. You have no ability to refute this argument.
To me, regardless of whether God exists or does not exist, atheism has no meaning. And you will never be able to convince me otherwise because it is impossible to logically do so if meaning is only subjective with no objective reference. Your personal meaning is not good enough for me. It is not relevant to me. It does not exist for me. As far as I am concerned, in my subjective realm, your meaning does not exist.
Now prove me wrong. Prove that your subjective meaning transcends into my worldview. Prove that your subjective meaning has an objective tint. If you cannot, then my argument all along has been 100% correct and you have no consistent response other than to admit it.
Okay, Peter. One last try.
ReplyDeleteI asked:
Can you show that any kind of meaning exists, apart from the "meaning that each person finds for themselves in the short space of their own lives", as Paul put it?
You reply:
This is a question that YOU must answer, Zilch. You, as an atheist, have to demonstrate "real meaning." I do not have to demonstrate real meaning in order to show you do not have real meaning.
But Peter, you are the one claiming there is such a thing as "real meaning", apart from "subjective meaning"- Paul and I make no such claim. And you are the one claiming that it is the lack of this "real meaning", which you have not defined, that makes the lives of atheists meaningless. Paul and I have made no claims about what life must be like for theists: it is you making the claims, and the burden of proof is therefore upon you.
You say:
I've argued from your worldview repeatedly. The only thing I've not done is sipped your Kool-Aid and pretended that meaning that I invent is actually real.
[...]
So answer the question. If all meaning is subjective meaning that comes about due to evolutionary processes that have occured in an objectively non-meaningful universe, then in what possible sense could they actually be real?
No, you have not argued from our worldview. And you have not told us what "actually real" means. Until you do so, I can't answer your question. As I have said, for me, meanings are thoughts in the mind of the meaner. You have not defined meaning, but simply repeated that there exists something you call "intrinsic" or "objective" or "real" meaning, lacking which we atheists can have no meaning at all. But you haven't told us what it is. Please do so, or there is no point in going on.
So look at this logically. I've made claims about how the atheist views the universe (claims which you eventually agreed to). I made deductions based on those claims, and the deductions themselves are not in dispute.
Yes, I have agreed with your claims that the atheist views the universe as having no absolute or "objective" meanings. But your deductions are most certainly in dispute: you deduce that we atheists must logically commit suicide because we don't believe in your absolutes, and I don't agree: you have not shown why I should do so, merely said over and over that life must be meaningless for us because it is 1) not eternal and 2) not "objective", by your standards. You are simply arguing from your viewpoint, not from ours, and have not demonstrated any logical reason that we should feel as you do.
You say:
If you still insist that you are creating true meaning on your own, then please consider this before responding.
1) All meaning is subjective.
2) I do not perceive meaning in your worldview.
3) Therefore, according to me, you do not have any meaning at all.
How can you possibly refute this? Do you say:
4) "I have meaning for myself"
But if so, your meaning is only for you and it does not extend to me. I do not experience your experiences. The fact that you think you have meaning does not extend to my reality. Your reality is only yours, NOT MINE.
So your bare assertion that you have meaning cannot override my assertion that you do not have meaning. If I subjectively hold that you do not have meaning, and you subjectively hold that you do have meaning, who wins?
You have no objective meaning to reference. You have no ability to refute this argument.
This argument is incoherent. Of course, given the fact that we cannot (yet) prove the content of our mental states, they can always be doubted. But in general, unless there are good reasons to believe someone is deliberately lying, then it is reasonable to assume that the "winner" is the person describing their own mental states. I could just as well say:
1) You say that you have a headache.
2) But pain is subjective, and my subjective feeling is that you have no headache.
3) Your feeling that you have a headache cannot override my assertion that you do not have a headache. You have no ability to refute this argument.
Is this a reasonable position for me to take? No; and for the same reason, your subjective feeling that my worldview has no meaning does not refute my feeling that my worldview does have meaning.
You conclude, and I will too:
As far as I am concerned, in my subjective realm, your meaning does not exist.
Now prove me wrong. Prove that your subjective meaning transcends into my worldview. Prove that your subjective meaning has an objective tint. If you cannot, then my argument all along has been 100% correct and you have no consistent response other than to admit it.
Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that my meaning does not exist for you. And I have not disputed that. But that's not what we are arguing here. I have no intention of "proving" to you that my meaning transcends into your worldview. What we are arguing here is your claim that atheists, based on their worldview, must logically commit suicide. And you have not demonstrated that, but simply repeated, over and over, that since we don't believe in absolute meaning and eternal life, we must despair. Sorry, we're not despairing. Actually, I'm having a lot of fun.
Peace be with you. Drop me a line if you're ever in Vienna, or SF, and the drinks are on me. cheers, zilch
You, as an atheist, have to demonstrate "real meaning." I do not have to demonstrate real meaning in order to show you do not have real meaning.
ReplyDeleteIt should be clear to you by now that we don't understand what you mean by "real meaning", and we're asking for clarification in order to answer your question better.
The only thing you disagree on is the final conclusion, not the method nor the starting premise.
No, I also dispute your reasoning - that was the long essay that I haven't got around to posting, but I will if you want me to.
If all meaning is subjective meaning that comes about due to evolutionary processes that have occured in an objectively non-meaningful universe, then in what possible sense could they actually be real?
In what sense are they not real? You seem to think that the opposite of "objective" is "meaningless" - but we do not share this view. That's something you've smuggled in from your perspective, as Zilch has pointed out.
But if you feel that there is a monster under your bed, that doesn't make it real. If you feel that your life is meaningful, that doesn't make it so.
Yes, it does. These are two demonstrably different things. The first "feeling" (more properly, belief) is regarding the existence of something external to myself - so my internal belief may well be irrelevant to its existence. The second "feeling" is actually my conscious mind registering the existence of something internal to myself - so the feeling that my life is meaningful is the meaningfulness itself.
One more little note that might help clarify things. Peter, you ask:
ReplyDeleteIf all meaning is subjective meaning that comes about due to evolutionary processes that have occured in an objectively non-meaningful universe, then in what possible sense could they actually be real?
What if I were to ask you:
If all perception is subjective perception that comes about due to evolutionary processes that have occurred in an objectively non-perceiving universe, then in what possible sense could perception actually be real?
I think you would agree that perception is "subjective" by your definition: my seeing a red hat, for instance, does not mean that you see a red hat: it is solely my perception. Of course, given the same or similar conditions, we might have similar perceptions, just as we might assign similar meanings to, say, the sight of a car veering off toward a group of deaf students. But my perception is in my mind, and does not affect your perception in your mind, unless I communicate it to you in some way.
Would you still say that our perceptions are not "real" perceptions? If not, what is further required to make them "real"?
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch