Philosophy Now Forum

Logically it would seem so.

PhilX

Why?

I consider the goal of Heaven and the deep tranquility something deeper than "collecting post stamps"!

Because "collecting stamps" is as deep Atheism goes! "Stamp collecting" is here written universally for other activities regarding something arbitrary as much as collecting stamps or gathering music for your library or investing in an expensive stereo.

This goes deeper still, but I'll refrain myself from commenting further.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:53 pm Logically it would seem so.

PhilX

How can anybody "find" a thing, unless it's already something that exists? If someone says, "Find me a hammer," that sentence can only make sense if hammers already exist.

What can a universe "mean" when it's the product of a cosmic accident? A Big Bang is, by definition, a cosmic accident: and nobody asks, "What did that accident "mean" by happening?"

The very suppositions of Atheism rule out any possibility of the universe "meaning" anything by producing our existence, and hence, rule out any chance at all of a "meaning" being "found."

So I would say that anything that makes an advance on zero, in regard to the possibility of "meaning" existing, beats Atheism by exactly whatever amount it has.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:09 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:53 pm Logically it would seem so.

PhilX

How can anybody "find" a thing, unless it's already something that exists? If someone says, "Find me a hammer," that sentence can only make sense if hammers already exist.

What can a universe "mean" when it's the product of a cosmic accident? A Big Bang is, by definition, a cosmic accident: and nobody asks, "What did that accident "mean" by happening?"

The very suppositions of Atheism rule out any possibility of the universe "meaning" anything by producing our existence, and hence, rule out any chance at all of a "meaning" being "found."

So I would say that anything that makes an advance on zero, in regard to the possibility of "meaning" existing, beats Atheism by exactly whatever amount it has.

Incidentally, I’ll get back to your responses in the secularism versus demonization of atheists thread when I have more time.

I find your response deeply confused. Of course atheists say that the universe has no meaning. Saturn has no meaning. Grains of sand have no meaning. Empty space has no meaning. And so on.

This is because only agents can have meanings, purposes, goals, objectives. Your response omits to mention the true location of meaning: the mind. Of course the mind is part of the universe, so we may say that a meaningless universe does contain a tiny subset where meaning resides.

Maybe you should read this:

I asked atheists how they find meaning in a purposeless universe.

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:20 pm I find your response deeply confused. Of course atheists say that the universe has no meaning. Saturn has no meaning. Grains of sand have no meaning. Empty space has no meaning. And so on.

Quite right, according to Atheism. Nothing "means" anything, nor does any entity -- planet or person -- have any place in a "scheme" of meaning the universe generates. So there's no "finding" meaning. There's nothing there to "find." Right on.

This is because only agents can have meanings, purposes, goals, objectives.

False.

This isn't (as per the OP) "finding" anything. It's "making up" pseudo-meanings that factually aren't there. At least, that's what Atheism has to say is happening. Thus, there is nothing by way of meaning for an Atheist to "have."

Your "agents" can have only the delusion of "meaning." That is, the Atheist has to say that for some inexplicable reason, human beings have developed a yearning to attribute to the universe coherence and meaning that it inherently does not have. In other words, they are not "finding" or "detecting" some real thing that is actually there: like a child who imagines patterns in swirls of sand, they are "seeing" faces or animal shapes, creating a delusion of something that is not reflective of the actual manner in which the thing in question was created.

Your response omits to mention the true location of meaning: the mind. Of course the mind is part of the universe, so we may say that a meaningless universe does contain a tiny subset where meaning resides.

Again, "mind" is, according to Atheism, just a contingent byproduct of the impersonal, non-designed and inherently meaningless universe. "Mind" is a location of epiphenomenal delusion...nothing more. If it produces certain kinds of delusions, like desire for meaning, then that fact is also merely contingent and doesn't give us any reason to suppose a "meaning" is there to be "found."

Maybe you should read this:

Buzzfeed? Seriously? What, was Twitter down?

I'll answer you seriously anyway.

It's not relevant to the question that Atheists imagine meaning. We all know they do. That's very easy to verify. It's just that, per their Atheism, they must simply be deluding themselves when they do it. It cannot be real meaning they are observing -- for their universe is not allowed by them to have any. Thus, by their own philosophical lights, they cannot be "finding" meaning, only fooling themselves. Sure, they can generate sugar castles of fancy in their brains...but their philosophy denies that any of these fancies can be anything more than a fancy.

As the Atheistic Camus observed, human beings' yearning for meaning does not imply a duty on the part of their universe to provide them with one -- and imagining one, he said, was not bravery or wisdom or intelligence, but rather "intellectual suicide," to use his term. It was a reaction of fear, by those who were not up to being "the absurd hero," the man or woman capable of accepting the inherent absurdity of the universe, with its total absence of meaning, and living with it.

This is an old problem with Atheism: it's cowardly. Those who proclaim they believe it can never live with the consequences that it entails. However, a kind way to see this is to say that Atheists are too human, and have to "bail out" of their own philosophy at the critical moment and begin to imagine things that their philosophy tells them are not there.

If so, then that may commend some Atheists for remaining human (contrary to their philosophy); but that hardly commends Atheism as a worldview. For it shows yet again that Atheism cannot be consistently lived. Its consequences are simply inhuman.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:50 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:20 pm I find your response deeply confused. Of course atheists say that the universe has no meaning. Saturn has no meaning. Grains of sand have no meaning. Empty space has no meaning. And so on.

Quite right, according to Atheism. Nothing "means" anything, nor does any entity -- planet or person -- have any place in a "scheme" of meaning the universe generates. So there's no "finding" meaning. There's nothing there to "find." Right on.

So essentially, theists are the only ones capable of "finding" meaning, as only within a theistic world does meaning already exist? The meaning that atheists claim to have is not found, but invented by themselves?

It is somewhat absurd that atheists would seek meaning given that their belief in the randomness of the universe doesn't place any value in the concept. How can there be any meaning if everything is just a byproduct or an accident? What's the point of creating meaning if there exists none in the first place?

Vendetta wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:50 pm So essentially, theists are the only ones capable of "finding" meaning, as only within a theistic world does meaning already exist? The meaning that atheists claim to have is not found, but invented by themselves?

Well, it would have to be, wouldn't it?

I mean, from where can they get it, when they deny that there is any intrinsic, given meaning to anything? All they can do is turn to their emotions, and say "X makes me feel meaningful," or "Y is something I use to impart meaning to myself." And yet, how can they not know that their own creed falsifies their hopes and reduces these strategies to the status of mere comforting delusions?

It is somewhat absurd that atheists would seek meaning given that their belief in the randomness of the universe doesn't place any value in the concept.

Yes: this is what Camus noted. He realized that, as an Atheist, he had to accept that the universe has no intrinsic meaning. He took the further step, and realized that any meaning he might try to give it would be bound to be a fake. But he also observed that people cannot live without meaning. And that's why he started his book, "The Myth of Sisyphus," with a line like, "There is but one serious problem in all of philosophy, and that is suicide." He felt that to choose to live, even while facing the horror of meaninglessness, was the most courageous position for an Atheist to take.

I'll give him points for that. But I would wonder why we should brand as "heroic" one choice (to live) and another as "unheroic" (to die) if there is no real purpose for life anyway. That certainly seems arbitrary, on his part.

He goes on to talk about two types of "suicide", on physical, the other intellectual. The person who commits physical suicide when he realizes the essential absurdity of existence is one thing. The other alternative, intellectual suicide, is to do exactly what davidm is trying to promote -- that is, the accepting of a false hope, a delusory "meaning" chosen by oneself, rather than facing up to the hard truth. And Camus thought that was, if anything, a worse kind of suicide. After all, the first may be somewhat cowardly, as he saw it, but the second lacks integrity as well. It involves a sort of "bad faith," a decision to deceive oneself and run from the hard facts of life.

How can there be any meaning if everything is just a byproduct or an accident? What's the point of creating meaning if there exists none in the first place?

Well, as Camus said, the only reason to do that is to hide from the truth. And if you did that, he said, you could never be what he called "the absurd hero," the person who sees the truth of meaninglessness and yet decides to embrace it and live with it.

Buzzfeed? Seriously? What, was Twitter down?

Now, of course, Buzzfeed is not a person, but still, this smacks of ad hom: P1. People are quoted on Buzzfeed. P2: Buzzfeed (and Twitter) sucks (which I agree with). C: Therefore, these people quoted on Buzzfeed are wrong. Then again, I assume Buzzfeed is some kind of corporate entity, and as Mitt Romney said, corporations are people, too. So you have ad-hommed Buzzfeed!

Your "agents" can have only the delusion of "meaning." That is, the Atheist has to say that for some inexplicable reason, human beings have developed a yearning to attribute to the universe coherence and meaning that it inherently does not have.

No! The atheist does NOT say this! Or at least, I do not.

When I speak of “meaning,” I do not say I attribute meaning to grains of sand, or empty space, or Saturn or anything else. What would that even … uh, mean? I said in my very first post that I do not attribute meaning to the universe!

Meaning is restricted to agents with sentience, self-awareness, purposes and goals. That is what meaning is. It cannot be anything else. It does not exist outside of ourselves and it cannot be ascribed to the external world.

Again, "mind" is, according to Atheism, just a contingent byproduct of the impersonal, non-designed and inherently meaningless universe.

Right. And?

Over a vast period of time, meaningless matter produced minds. Minds make meanings. Not meanings for the meaningless universe — but meanings for themselves. Your argument is straightforwardly a composition fallacy. It’s like saying that in order for water to be wet, then hydrogen and oxygen must also be wet — plainly ridiculous! Yet that is the substance of your argument above.

As the Atheistic Camus observed, human beings' yearning for meaning does not imply a duty on the part of their universe to provide them with one …

And here, up to the ellipses, I agree with Camus! The universe does NOT provide us with meaning, nor could it; WE provide ourselves with meaning. Saturn can go sod off; it’s a very pretty planet but I don’t look to it for a source of meaning, unless perhaps I am an astronomer and Saturn gives me meaning in that it motivates me to study the universe.

This is an old problem with Atheism: it's cowardly.

So you say. I say different. Did you read the testimony of the atheists in the link? Jerry Coyne, the very first person quoted, got it right: We [atheists] just come to grips with reality. That’s not cowardice. That is courage.

Just like in the other thread where you invoked Hume’s Guillotine without first attending to the fatality of theism under Hume’s Fork, here you fail to recognize the flip side of what I would call Camus’ Coin: If atheists “seeking” meaning are cowards, then all the more so are theists, according to Camus. Theists just make up a God to provide meaning!

In any case, invoking Camus is an empty argument to authority, and I am very familiar with his work.

Moreover, the idea that we seek meaning is subtly wrong. I don’t seek meaning, I make meaning. The distinction is crucial. You may call this “delusional” if you like, but that is just your opinion. You seem to predefine meaning as “that which comes from God.” But this is just to stack the deck, or worse, beg the question. Of course, if “meaning” really meant “that which comes from God,” then you would be right; unfortunately, arguments that incorporate their conclusion in their premises are circular and thus invalid.

I had actually intended to raise Camus and more in my post to which you have replied, but ran out of time. I was going to say then, and will say now, that I found the Buzzfeed accounts quite superficial, but that’s because Buzzfeed appeals to a low bar. There should have been a Camus advocate quoted. There should also have been a fan of Nietzsche given his say — the idea that the response to the death of God ought to be that we ourselves become Overman, with the understanding that Christianity itself is the epitome of nihilism.

They should also have interviewed atheists who believe that atheism indeed entails both moral nihilism and meaning nihilism. But as I say, Buzzfeed aims for a low bar. At least I think you and I can agree on that.

You know, the funny thing is, it has always been theists, and polytheists, who have attributed meaning to the external world. Thunder is Thor’s hammer beating on the clouds! A comet is a sign of impending doom! A typhoon “means” that God is displeased with you.

I Can has got everything backward. Atheists do NOT attribute such meanings to the external world; theists do! Atheists say the external world is meaningless but that meanings are made in the mind, and for the mind; these meanings are not ascribed to anything external to the mind.

Metaphysical naturalism gives us a parsimonious account of meaning without invoking Thor. Thunder and lightning does not “mean” that Thor is mad at us, it means physics.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:46 am You know, the funny thing is, it has always been theists, and polytheists, who have attributed meaning to the external world.

And what a meaning. According to theists like Mr Can, the world exists purely so that human beings can demonstrate their resolve, by resisting the temptation to do anything worth doing: sex and drugs and rock and roll, but most of all, think. The lucky ascetics are then rewarded, with an eternity of mindless gratitude to the very creator that cruelly tempted them in the first place.
That's the best his supreme being could come up with.