What is morality?

[Gary Childress]

Well, he can -- if he doesn't mind deceiving himself.


That's what's called the "consequence." But its not a "meaning," in the semiotic sense of that word. It lacks the element of signification. You're then just a random monad, experiencing a random consequence, in a universe without purpose, direction or actual "story" into which that random even can be slotted. If you make something up, then you're just making it up...fooling yourself.

Everything has meaning.

Not according to secularism. Everything is an accidental product of a random-chance universe, and nothing has any meaning beyond itself. Whatever IS, simply IS. No more can be said. It doesn't signify or mean anything.

If I go to the casino and lose my money it literally MEANS I am broke.

You're not using the word "meaning" accurately there. To "mean," used precisely, means not merely "to cause" or "to have a consequence" but "to signify something" beyond itself. It means that the event fits into a narrative that adds up to some sort of message or intelligible narrative.

If you go to the casino and lose your money, it will cause you to be broke. But according to secular thought, that won't mean anything. It's not that the universe hates you, or you're under a curse from the universe, or that the universe cares about how much money you have...In other words, it will not have any narrative or teleological significance. It will just be how the dice happened to roll. Nothing more.

So if I go to a casino and lose all my money, does that not signify that I will be "broke"? And if there is no God, does it no longer signify that I will be broke? I can just turn around and buy a Ferrari afterward because losing all my money in a casino doesn't signify brokeness or bankruptcy? I agree with Popeye in the sense that I don't think you've thought this all the way through, and I'd like to see you connect the dots.

[Immanuel Can]

Everything has meaning.

Not according to secularism. Everything is an accidental product of a random-chance universe, and nothing has any meaning beyond itself. Whatever IS, simply IS. No more can be said. It doesn't signify or mean anything.

If I go to the casino and lose my money it literally MEANS I am broke.

You're not using the word "meaning" accurately there. To "mean," used precisely, means not merely "to cause" or "to have a consequence" but "to signify something" beyond itself. It means that the event fits into a narrative that adds up to some sort of message or intelligible narrative.

If you go to the casino and lose your money, it will cause you to be broke. But according to secular thought, that won't mean anything. It's not that the universe hates you, or you're under a curse from the universe, or that the universe cares about how much money you have...In other words, it will not have any narrative or teleological significance. It will just be how the dice happened to roll. Nothing more.

So if I go to a casino and lose all my money, does that not signify that I will be "broke"?

Again, you're not using your words precisely: and you're confusing yourself by that.

Differentiate between what you understand when you say "consequence" versus what you say when you say "meaning". Tell me how the concepts look distinct to you...if they do.

If they don't, then you're using the word "meaning" so loosely that you're not according it any distinct meaning.

[Gary Childress]

Not according to secularism. Everything is an accidental product of a random-chance universe, and nothing has any meaning beyond itself. Whatever IS, simply IS. No more can be said. It doesn't signify or mean anything.
You're not using the word "meaning" accurately there. To "mean," used precisely, means not merely "to cause" or "to have a consequence" but "to signify something" beyond itself. It means that the event fits into a narrative that adds up to some sort of message or intelligible narrative.

If you go to the casino and lose your money, it will cause you to be broke. But according to secular thought, that won't mean anything. It's not that the universe hates you, or you're under a curse from the universe, or that the universe cares about how much money you have...In other words, it will not have any narrative or teleological significance. It will just be how the dice happened to roll. Nothing more.

So if I go to a casino and lose all my money, does that not signify that I will be "broke"?

Again, you're not using your words precisely: and you're confusing yourself by that.

Differentiate between what you understand when you say "consequence" versus what you say when you say "meaning". Tell me how the concepts look distinct to you...if they do.

If they don't, then you're using the word "meaning" so loosely that you're not according it any distinct meaning.

Meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself. Physical things connect to other physical things through physical properties; thoughts connect to things by the "meaning" they "signify" instead of physically "connecting". If you disagree, then please give your own definition of "meaning".

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, it's true; you need to think about it more.

Too late. I'm miles ahead of you on this.

In the absence of consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless.

But God is a consciousness.

So you're right in this much: absent God, the world would be utterly meaningless. In fact, it wouldn't even exist...nor would any other consciousness.

[Immanuel Can]

So if I go to a casino and lose all my money, does that not signify that I will be "broke"?

Again, you're not using your words precisely: and you're confusing yourself by that.

Differentiate between what you understand when you say "consequence" versus what you say when you say "meaning". Tell me how the concepts look distinct to you...if they do.

If they don't, then you're using the word "meaning" so loosely that you're not according it any distinct meaning.

Meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself.

Ah. You're thinking that a perception that there might be a meaning is the same as the objective reality of there being a meaning.

No, of course: delusions give one a perception of things that do not exist. It doesn't make them exist.

[Gary Childress]

Again, you're not using your words precisely: and you're confusing yourself by that.

Differentiate between what you understand when you say "consequence" versus what you say when you say "meaning". Tell me how the concepts look distinct to you...if they do.

If they don't, then you're using the word "meaning" so loosely that you're not according it any distinct meaning.

Meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself.

Ah. You're thinking that a perception that there might be a meaning is the same as the objective reality of there being a meaning.

No, of course: delusions give one a perception of things that do not exist. It doesn't make them exist.

OK. So is it your contention that my statement, that "meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself", is false? My statement above about meaning is false? Or is it true of meaning? And if it is false, then why is it false? And if you can give me a reason why it is false, can you give me "the" definition of "meaning" that does not fail for the same reasons mine does?

[Immanuel Can]

Meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself.

Ah. You're thinking that a perception that there might be a meaning is the same as the objective reality of there being a meaning.

No, of course: delusions give one a perception of things that do not exist. It doesn't make them exist.

OK. So is it your contention that my statement, that "meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself", is false?

No, but I would say it's so vague as not to convey anything. What is this "something else" that thought is supposed to "connect" with?

I've already explained what meaning is...more than once. It's the discovery of the significance of a single event within the context of a larger, truthful narrative. To find the meaning of something is to find its correct placement within the context of a larger teleological arc.

But according to secularism, there is neither a narrative nor a teleology; so according to secularism, there is no meaning to any event.

What you're talking about looks to me like the imagining of a meaning where, as the secularist would have to believe, there is none.

[Gary Childress]

OK. So is it your contention that my statement, that "meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself", is false?

No, but I would say it's so vague as not to convey anything. What is this "something else" that thought is supposed to "connect" with?

So my statement is true OF meaning but it is not the DEFINITION of meaning. Is that correct?

I've already explained what meaning is...more than once.

Sorry to make you repeat it. Thank you for doing so because I didn't see where you defined it.

It's the discovery of the significance of a single event within the context of a larger, truthful narrative. To find the meaning of something is to find its correct placement within the context of a larger teleological arc.

So you use the word "teleological," meaning that part of the definition of meaning is to have a goal or purpose. Is that correct? And not only that, but it must be the "correct" goal or purpose, not an "incorrect" one. Is that correct?

But according to secularism, there is neither a narrative nor a teleology; so according to secularism, there is no meaning to any event.

So meaning itself IS a "narrative" or "teleology"? Or are you saying meaning must CONTAIN a "narrative" or "teleology"?

What you're talking about looks to me like the imagining of a meaning where, as the secularist would have to believe, there is none.

I'm saying all words have meaning whether they are talking about things that exist in reality or even talking about something that doesn't exist in reality. Do you disagree?

Unicorns don't exist. But if I say, "unicorns don't exist" then "unicorn" means or refers to something that I'm referring to that doesn't exist but it still has meaning. It would be incorrect of me to say that "unicorn" doesn't mean anything. Wouldn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So is it your contention that my statement, that "meaning is created when a thought connects to something other than itself", is false?

No, but I would say it's so vague as not to convey anything. What is this "something else" that thought is supposed to "connect" with?

So my statement is true OF meaning but it is not the DEFINITION of meaning. Is that correct?

No. It's so vague I can't figure out what you mean by it. I don't know what your "something else" is, or how it's supposed to "connect". Can you clarify?

So you use the word "teleological," meaning that part of the definition of meaning is to have a goal or purpose. Is that correct? And not only that, but it must be the "correct" goal or purpose, not an "incorrect" one. Is that correct?

You can have a deceptive meaning, of course. But one should want a true one, no?

But according to secularism, there is neither a narrative nor a teleology; so according to secularism, there is no meaning to any event.

So meaning itself IS a "narrative" or "teleology"? Or are you saying meaning must CONTAIN a "narrative" or "teleology"?

Not quite. The particular event (say, losing your money at the casino) only can find a meaning within a larger narrative context or teleology. But it is not, itself the narrative or the teleology.

This is what makes secularism different. It denies the possibility of life being any narrative or teleology. It's not allowed to mean anything. Events are supposed to be caused by the mere accidental coming together of random elements. In such a world, there's no way to find any meaning for your loss at the casino. It just happened. That's all that can be said.

What you're talking about looks to me like the imagining of a meaning where, as the secularist would have to believe, there is none.

I'm saying all words have meaning

No, not words. Events. Like your loss at the casino. The question is about a meaning for life events, not merely the meanings of words. What we want to know is if life itself has any story or teleology that could make your loss of money at the casino signify something important to the story or the trajectory of the teleological purpose of your life.

[Gary Childress]

No, but I would say it's so vague as not to convey anything. What is this "something else" that thought is supposed to "connect" with?

So my statement is true OF meaning but it is not the DEFINITION of meaning. Is that correct?

No. It's so vague I can't figure out what you mean by it. I don't know what your "something else" is, or how it's supposed to "connect". Can you clarify?

So you use the word "teleological," meaning that part of the definition of meaning is to have a goal or purpose. Is that correct? And not only that, but it must be the "correct" goal or purpose, not an "incorrect" one. Is that correct?

You can have a deceptive meaning, of course. But one should want a true one, no?

But according to secularism, there is neither a narrative nor a teleology; so according to secularism, there is no meaning to any event.

So meaning itself IS a "narrative" or "teleology"? Or are you saying meaning must CONTAIN a "narrative" or "teleology"?

Not quite. The particular event (say, losing your money at the casino) only can find a meaning within a larger narrative context or teleology. But it is not, itself the narrative or the teleology.

This is what makes secularism different. It denies the possibility of life being any narrative or teleology. It's not allowed to mean anything. Events are supposed to be caused by the mere accidental coming together of random elements. In such a world, there's no way to find any meaning for your loss at the casino. It just happened. That's all that can be said.

What you're talking about looks to me like the imagining of a meaning where, as the secularist would have to believe, there is none.

I'm saying all words have meaning

No, not words. Events. Like your loss at the casino. The question is about a meaning for life events, not merely the meanings of words. What we want to know is if life itself has any story or teleology that could make your loss of money at the casino signify something important to the story or the trajectory of the teleological purpose of your life.

If an event is the object of thought, (something usually communicated using words), then it must have meaning. HOWEVER, if the event is something new to us and doesn't have an ascribed meaning for us yet, who do you think is going to assign the meaning and words referring to that new event? Do you think that if there is no God, then humans cannot say for example, that a black hole means, "an astronomical object created from some dying stars that is so dense that not even light can escape from it." Humans can't have meaning for something that isn't described in the Bible? Is that the case?

[Immanuel Can]

If an event is the object of thought,

No, Gary...an event is the event. The words we attach to it are an attempt to find a meaning in the event. But the fact that a word has something it signifies does not impart a meaning to the event. Either the event has a meaning we can discover through words, or it does not. The words will not magically make meaningfulness out of an inherently meaningless event -- which is all secularism can say your "casino" venture could be.

who do you think is going to assign the meaning and words referring to it?

If our events have a meaning, then that meaning is only known to God. But that doesn't mean that we human beings don't try to guess what the meaning might be. We certainly do that. In fact, it's often how we cope with difficult events.

For example, you might say, "my loss at the casino tells me I've hit rock bottom." And maybe you have, and maybe you haven't, but perhaps that's how you try to process it. And then, maybe you say, "This is God's way of telling me to get my life together, and stop looking to random chance to deliver things to me with no effort." And maybe you're right; and maybe you're not. But it's the message you take for yourself out of the event.

When you will know whether your guessed-at meaning is close to the truth of the meaning of those events is only when you meet God. Until then, all your "meanings" you assign to the casino incident will be tentative and possibly incorrect. But they are your attempt to find the truth, and to make of your life a narrative that is worthwhile and teleologically contributory.

In other words, when we try to assign meaning to events, what we're really trying to do is to "read" to ourselves the true story of our lives, and figure out how this one incident affects the whole. But nothing we assign can make the meaningless meaningful, or render the meaningful meaningless.

Either the events in our lives have meaning, or they do not. We may discover it, or we may not. But we cannot make meaning if none exists. All we could make, then, would be delusions.

[Gary Childress]

If an event is the object of thought,

No, Gary...an event is the event. The words we attach to it are an attempt to find a meaning in the event. But the fact that a word has something it signifies does not impart a meaning to the event. Either the event has a meaning we can discover through words, or it does not. The words will not magically make meaningfulness out of an inherently meaningless event -- which is all secularism can say your "casino" venture could be.

who do you think is going to assign the meaning and words referring to it?

If our events have a meaning, then that meaning is only known to God. But that doesn't mean that we human beings don't try to guess what the meaning might be. We certainly do that. In fact, it's often how we cope with difficult events.

For example, you might say, "my loss at the casino tells me I've hit rock bottom." And maybe you have, and maybe you haven't, but perhaps that's how you try to process it. And then, maybe you say, "This is God's way of telling me to get my life together, and stop looking to random chance to deliver things to me with no effort." And maybe you're right; and maybe you're not. But it's the message you take for yourself out of the event.

When you will know whether your guessed-at meaning is close to the truth of the meaning of those events is only when you meet God. Until then, all your "meanings" you assign to the casino incident will be tentative and possibly incorrect. But they are your attempt to find the truth, and to make of your life a narrative that is worthwhile and teleologically contributory.

In other words, when we try to assign meaning to events, what we're really trying to do is to "read" to ourselves the true story of our lives, and figure out how this one incident affects the whole. But nothing we assign can make the meaningless meaningful, or render the meaningful meaningless.

Either the events in our lives have meaning, or they do not. We may discover it, or we may not. But we cannot make meaning if none exists. All we could make, then, would be delusions.

OK. So if there were no God, then losing all my money in a casino would not "mean" anything. Is that correct? It would be "meaningless", therefore pointless and of no interest whatsoever to me? I would just go on in life unperturbed, unchanged, unaffected, as though nothing happened? Is that correct? OR is it the case that "meaningless" things can affect us?

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So if there were no God, then losing all my money in a casino would not "mean" anything. Is that correct? It would be "meaningless", therefore pointless and of no interest whatsoever to me?

Oh, you might be very interested in it. You might be totally consumed with it, in fact.

But secularism would tell you that it's just a random happening in a random-accidentally-created world. So there would be no point in you looking for it to mean anything: it would just be unhappy and random.

[Gary Childress]

OK. So if there were no God, then losing all my money in a casino would not "mean" anything. Is that correct? It would be "meaningless", therefore pointless and of no interest whatsoever to me?

Oh, you might be very interested in it. You might be totally consumed with it, in fact.

But secularism would tell you that it's just a random happening in a random-accidentally-created world. So there would be no point in you looking for it to mean anything: it would just be unhappy and random.

So when you say that an event (like losing all my money at a casino) is "meaningless," what is the difference between a meaningless event and the same thing happening "meaningfully"? What quality or attribute does a "meaningful" event have that a "meaningless" event doesn't have? Would that be "teleology" and "correctness" in interpretation? In other words, a "meaningless" event would have no purpose and no "correct" way to be interpreted. Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

...what is the difference between a meaningless event and the same thing happening "meaningfully"?

We've been over this...and over this. I can't think of how to explain it to you again.