Yeah. If I can find the time. I put my creative ambitions on the back burner to climb the big boy ladder. I did just spend a month getting high and pecking away on an Olympia SM3. But vacation is over, so it's back to sciency stuff.

All I'm saying is start with Satie, not McCoy.

Most definitely. To quote Cornel West: time is real. Perhaps others can relate. A person can be young enough to still dream of a reinvention or two and old enough to really see the finitude of that ultimate resource.

As I get older, I also see the jack of all trades versus master of one dilemma. Of course it's good to keep the brain lit up as a whole, but our culture rewards specialization professionally. In private life, at least, wellroundedness is rewarded. One can relate to more types of people, etc.

As I get older, I also see the jack of all trades versus master of one dilemma. Of course it's good to keep the brain lit up as a whole, but our culture rewards specialization professionally. In private life, at least, wellroundedness is rewarded. One can relate to more types of people, etc. — dog

Aim for the wellroundedness.

Aim for the wellroundedness. — Noble Dust

I agree. I put up with a certain amount regimentation to afford a lifestyle free enough of worry, etc. There's a foggy calculation involved. This one particular life feels almost randomly plucked from a thousands lives I could enjoy. A man has a good wife, a particular woman with her particular quirks. But he sees here and there other women with whom a different and at least equally interesting adventure could be had. Same with careers or artistic paths.

But relationships, careers, and media are structured like ladders. They increase in value as one puts time in. I'd suggest that an innate wellroundedness opens up a perception of the problem in the first place. If you think you could be good at a lot of things (or with a lot of different types of women), then you a certain ineradicable buyer's remorse. That's probably where dreams and fiction come in. Metaphorically we can think of a splintered blob-human whose splinters we are in our individual lives. Then one version of God is just this infinite species blob, transcending any particular voice and including them all.

It's interesting, the process of songwriting: it happens in all sorts of ways, but I'd say 6 or 7 times out of 10, how it happens is that someone has a kernel idea, a sort of nugget that's a fusion of a snippet of lyric conjoined with a snippet of melody, rhythm and harmony, even a tone sometimes, and the song sort of "unfolds" from that nugget - you follow the internal logic of the thing wherever it leads from that initial nugget. Usually, with this method, the lyrics start off as open syllables and vowels that work well with the melody, but you're playing around with them with the background meaning of the song in mind, and with the "nugget" as the thing you're eventually going to "land on" (as it were), and precise words, and other sections of the song, gradually coalesce out of that. And you generally tend to have (for pop music at least) 2 or 3 "main" sections (verse and chorus, or verse, bridge and chorus) that get repeated a lot, and one extra section ("middle 8") that provides a break, and a little excursion away from the main themes for a while.

Damn, giving away the secrets here :) — gurugeorge

I recognize that process. For me the instrumental players would offer up some riffs they had written. I'd improvise some lyrics over the music, suggest changes in the structure perhaps that facilitated the vocals. Sometimes we'd play the songs for months and I'd find a better lyric to replace something that wasn't quite right but the best I could do. Some of our best stuff was completely improvised, though. And sometimes we could never quite capture the magic of that first recording (I tried to record all 'pratices' that were just as much parties). Unfortunately, we had a little too much fun, and the recordings aren't generally studio quality. We weren't responsible or worldly enough to really even try to make a living that way. This didn't mean we weren't full of ourselves.

I also play guitar, and I have written a few songs completely myself. But I worked with two great guitarists (to my taste), so I tended to do it the aforementioned way. Of course this was also good for morale. We were great friends, and we all wanted to be songwriters on our instrument.

*For what it's worth, I like that album you linked to in one of your older posts.

Wowowow what's with that hood music in the beginning my dawg? >:O >:O >:O

Peterson — Thorongil

You Americans and Peterson >:O ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/6n6rhg/why_are_jordan_petersons_philosophical_opinions/

But actually, Pete was quite reasonable as I listened to him at 2x the speed here, unlike on some other occasions.

Askphil, especially the modship, is largely composed of belligerent left wing cranks (which sounds familiar...), so I always take what they say about Peterson with a grain of salt. Their primary objection to him basically amounts to the Courtier's Reply, but they never bother to explain what postmodernism is, which might justify employing such a reply. If they were made to do that, they would walk right into the kinds of objections Peterson raises. Postmodernism cannot be understood because it was never intended to be understood. It's a pose and an attitude, not a coherent philosophy.

Anyway, I thought Benatar was quite poor in this debate, despite the consensus from the comments that he "destroyed" Peterson.

Anyway, I thought Benatar was quite poor in this debate, despite the consensus from the comments that he "destroyed" Peterson. — Thorongil

I think it was evident that Benatar was trained in philosophy, he WAS more thorough, step-by-step and analytic than Peterson. However, Peterson was significantly more insightful than Benatar.

I think we want better for our children. We want them to have good productive lives, not lives of chronic pain, but we understand that we are limited by the facts of life, the chance mix of pleasure and pain in life.

Humans are only just on the scene compared to the rest of creation. Civilization has progressed over the last 3000 years of recorded history, for both good and bad. However, over the last 200 or so years we have made great strides in mediating actual pain and suffering. Not eliminating it, but moving in the right direction IMHO.

We can now avoid many debilitating diseases, and other calamities. Medicine and modern technology seem to be making great strides with no sign of let up, only giving us more hope. If the history of the world as we understand it is correct then this is only the beginning. Give the species a chance, maybe someday chronic pain will be a thing of the past.

Our species has a history of betterment. Sure there were/are wars and are terrible events, but there has also been considerable progress and improvement.

Children are our future X-)

No. You can have linguistic meaning in a material world, and science can be based on that, but you can't have meaning (with a capital 'M' as it were) in the sense of a kind of meaning that could counter nihilism - that is, the meaning of something's having a place in an over-arching narrative, or a telos, a purpose. — gurugeorge

What you continue to not acknowledge is that aesthetics, "linguistic meaning," and capital M meaning is all based on our values. Values are expressed in 'right or wrong' evaluations, aesthetics, and in religious traditions. There's no vast gulf between these modes.

Science leave out all questions of telos by design — gurugeorge

We're free to ask teleological questions, form hypothesizes, test, and so on. I don't know why you feel constrained in this way.

I should note that there's another important sense of Meaning, which is more related to mysticism - a sort of aesthetic arrest, suspension in the moment, nonduality, silence, "peace that passeth understanding" - although it can occur even in the midst of stress and action - etc., and that's a very important "thing" in this world, but it's non-conceptual. — gurugeorge

You appear to have formed a concept of it okay, even going so far as calling it a "thing."

2nd Gymnopedie IIRC. It was the amuse bouche of a set of three pieces (the others were Beethoven and Chopin things, much more flashy and difficult, of course). *sigh* so long ago now :)

What you continue to not acknowledge is that aesthetics, "linguistic meaning," and capital M meaning is all based on our values. Values are expressed in 'right or wrong' evaluations, aesthetics, and in religious traditions. There's no vast gulf between these modes. — praxis

Linguistic meaning isn't "based on values" it's a natural phenomenon that just grows. Although on another level I suppose you could say it's "based on values" in a particular sense - in the sense that language is a means of co-ordination, therefore of survival and flourishing, for us as social animals, which means it's ultimately subservient to the the value of reproductive fitness (the "tether" idea again) but I doubt that's the kind of "value" you mean - or is it? (I think you're probably alluding to a Marxist type of analysis of values in relation to social hierarchies? I would say there's probably some validity to that type of analysis when it comes to aesthetics and religion, but not to language as such, and not to science.)

We're free to ask teleological questions, form hypothesizes, test, and so on. — praxis

No, you can't ask teleological questions in science. The nearest thing would be the kind of reverse-engineering you get in evolutionary explanations, but of course that's just convenient shorthand for a bunch of complex mechanistic processes analyzed in other sciences. It's "as if" teleology.

For science, everything must necessarily be clickety-clack, from top to bottom, because that's all science looks for (material/efficient causes).

No, you can't ask teleological questions in science. — gurugeorge

Try it. See what happens. It's safe, I promise.

Try it. See what happens. It's safe, I promise. — praxis

Non-responsive. I explained why teleology isn't and can't possibly be a thing in science, if you think my explanation is wrong, have at it.

Frankly, I'm skeptical if your 'clickety-clack, as if' explanation is worth deciphering.

Teleology, as I expect you know, is a reason or explanation for the purpose or goal of something. Clearly, science can give reasons and explanations for the purpose or goal of something. So what purposes or goals are you curious about? If you define a goal or goals we can go from there.

Frankly, I'm skeptical if your 'clickety-clack, as if' explanation is worth deciphering. — praxis

Well, you'll never know until you try :)

Ugh, alright.

Linguistic meaning isn't "based on values" it's a natural phenomenon that just grows. — gurugeorge

Whether or not meaning is a natural phenomenon that just grows, this says nothing about your claim that meaning isn't based on values. Are you assuming that values are unnatural and don't "grow"? Is it that you consider the interpretation that meaning is based on values, the analysis itself, unnatural? and that having made this analysis there's no longer room for growth? In any case, in the very next breath you accept my claim, stating "I suppose you could say it's "based on values" in a particular sense."

This is a big nothingburger so far, but thanks for the opportunity to use the word nothingburger. I've been so wanting to try it.

No, you can't ask teleological questions in science. The nearest thing would be the kind of reverse-engineering you get in evolutionary explanations, but of course that's just convenient shorthand for a bunch of complex mechanistic processes analyzed in other sciences. It's "as if" teleology. — gurugeorge

Of course it's metaphorical in biology. How could it not be?

For science, everything must necessarily be clickety-clack, from top to bottom, because that's all science looks for (material/efficient causes). — gurugeorge

I don't know what you mean by "clickety-clack" or "from top to bottom." Rhythmic, and thorough or hierarchical?

If you're saying that science requires evidence, why does that prevent it from asking teleological questions?

You had said:-

"What you continue to not acknowledge is that aesthetics, "linguistic meaning," and capital M meaning is all based on our values."

I took this to mean that you think linguistic meaning is based either on our consciously held-values, or on values derived from the "base" (relations of production) in a Marxist sense, or on values derived from "power" relations in the modern-day pseudo-Marxist sense (e.g. "patriarchy", etc.). I disagree on all three counts: linguistic meaning is something that develops spontaneously over generations, and to the extent that any values are involved at all, they're unconscious and derived from things like differential reproductive fitness, status seeking, etc.

"Our values," as consciously held and expressed, or as products of social relations, sometimes align with those biologically-based values, sometimes not. Because the division of labour largely cushions us, as individuals and sub-groups, from the tribunal of nature, "our values" can freewheel away from those biological values to some extent (although ultimately they are a "tether" as I said above).

Of course it's metaphorical in biology. How could it not be? — praxis

Metaphorical teleology isn't teleology. All uses of teleological concepts in science are necessarily metaphorical, or shorthand, because science cannot possibly deal with teleology, only material or efficient causes and mechanistic explanations.

As I keep telling you, that's built in to the very idea of science as a way of looking at the world, as distinct from religious or mythological explanations (which are all about teleology). That's how science distinguished itself and split off from Scholastic natural philosophy in the period of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. That's how the great early scientists could still be believing Christians at the same time as they were scientists - because the very meat of science as a distinct enterprise WAS the bracketing, the methodological shelving, of teleological questions. (There's an often-used metaphor that's relevant here, of looking for the lost keys in the dark under the lamppost.)

linguistic meaning is something that develops spontaneously over generations, and to the extent that any values are involved at all, they're unconscious and derived from things like differential reproductive fitness, status seeking, etc. — gurugeorge

You're getting closer to accepting that "linguistic meaning" is based in values, it appears.

Metaphorical teleology isn't teleology. All uses of teleological concepts in science are necessarily metaphorical, or shorthand, because science cannot possibly deal with teleology, only material or efficient causes and mechanistic explanations.

As I keep telling you, that's built in to the very idea of science as a way of looking at the world, as distinct from religious or mythological explanations (which are all about teleology). — gurugeorge

Maybe try to think of it this way. If there were evidence of God's existence, like if he started appearing around the world and doing things that only a God could do, then his goals could be speculated on and studied scientifically, right? Indeed some claim that science was first developed to for this purpose, essentially to study God.

A more practical example is AGI (artificial general intelligence). AGI will likely present the most serious teleological questions our species will ever know, because within a couple of decades our survival could depend on it.

the very meat of science as a distinct enterprise WAS the bracketing, the methodological shelving, of teleological questions. — gurugeorge

Using my magic decoder ring translated this to: the substance of science was the methodical abandonment of teleological questions.

Hmm.

You're getting closer to accepting that "linguistic meaning" is based in values, it appears. — praxis

Not unless you think reproductive fitness is one of "our values." It may be a value for some to pump out as many babies as they possibly can, but I don't think it's what most people would think of as "our values."

AGI will likely present the most serious teleological questions our species will ever know, because within a couple of decades our survival could depend on it. — praxis

But we can only ask teleological questions about AI because it's something we're creating, and the thing we're creating can have as much purpose as we give it. The question at issue was teleology in nature - that can't be found (except in the "as if" sense, as I said). And if you pursue the naturalistic view to its logical conclusion, it can't even be found in us (we literally are P-zombies and it's "as if" teleology all the way down).

Using my magic decoder ring translated this to: the substance of science was the methodical abandonment of teleological questions. — praxis

It's not usually considered a sign that you're winning an argument when you twit people for their manner of expression ;)

I never said "abandoned," I said "bracketed/shelved." The first scientists were believing Christians, they didn't abandon teleology (obviously, since they were Christians, they believed that the world has purpose, the purpose God imbues it with), they simply set aside questions of Aristotelian final cause and formal cause in order to concentrate on questions of material and efficient cause. Many modern-day scientists are also religious believers.

Later, modern philosophy started to play with the literal abandonment of teleology, and naturalism/materialism became a distinct philosophy. And that's where nihilism and the "death of God" come in. (To the extent that many naturalists/materalists think that teleology has been disproven - actually that never happened, it's just another bit of rationalist boosterism.)

Personally, I love living life, and I truly enjoy the pleasures of joy, camaraderie, whatever other good things occur throughout life. However, I do still feel living is somewhat pointless. Why slave all the hours of the day away working, studying, whatever, just to die one day?

To have everything forgotten. Every accomplishment you've worked so hard to achieve. Everything gone forever. Well, unless it turns out the afterlife is a legitimate thing, but until there is some sort of scientific evidence I won't believe in that fully.

Of course, the joys of life are enough to continue living, but as a human being the only thing we live for is to reproduce and to aid our species. As Ender's Game says, humans are ultimately just tools, and the entire life we live is just to further our species. It's sad when I think about it that way.

It's not usually considered a sign that you're winning an argument when you twit people for their manner of expression ;) — gurugeorge

I'm not interested in winning an argument. I'm interested in what you're trying to say and your language is getting in the way of that. Perhaps you obfuscate by design? That you persist in it despite my teasing is a sign, of something.

To the extent that many naturalists/materialists think that teleology has been disproven - actually that never happened, it's just another bit of rationalist boosterism. — gurugeorge

No one can currently disprove the existence of an intelligent designer or whatever.

As far as I can tell we haven't had any movement in this discussion, which to my mind centers around your claim that once religious belief erodes, due to scientific discoveries that contradict religious doctrine, like evolution, for example, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe.

My position is that the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, in modernity to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority. And to be clear, any such narratives don't need to be based on a "material universe."

We are free to adopt an over-arching narrative from popular science fiction, as Open-minded Opossum describes in the post above. Depressing but cheeriness is not a requirement.

At this point, you might try to form a convincing argument that shows why we can't discover or construct an 'over-arching narrative' for ourselves.

Wouldn't you agree that whether the good or bad aspects of life predominate depends on whose life it is, and what their circumstances are, and what happens to/for them?

But we don't have a choice about being in our life anyway.

If there's reincarnation, then most likely the good and bad lives average-out.

(...and it seems to me that reincarnation is metaphysically-supported.)

If there isn't reincarnation, then you're just out-of-luck if your life is primarily one of suffering, disadvantage, adversity, loss.

But, even then, you have the considerable consolation that life isn't everything, and that this life will end with well-deserved rest and sleep.

So, overall, I'd say that metaphysical reality, and Reality itself, are good.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm interested in what you're trying to say and your language is getting in the way of that. Perhaps you obfuscate by design? — praxis

Perhaps you're just deliberately being a dick? The possibilities are endless. That's why civilized discourse normally proceeds under the assumption of charity of interpretation.

No one can currently disprove the existence of an intelligent designer or whatever. — praxis

That wouldn't be necessary to disprove teleology, it's independent of the idea of an intelligent designer. Aristotelian teleology is naturalistic - or to put it another way, you don't have to subscribe to intelligent design in order to understand examples of what must necessarily be construed as "as if" teleology on the basis of a materialistic/mechanistic understanding of nature, as examples of real teleology.

As far as I can tell we haven't had any movement in this discussion, which to my mind centers around your claim that once religious belief erodes, due to scientific discoveries that contradict religious doctrine, like evolution, for example, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe.

My position is that the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, in modernity to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority. And to be clear, any such narratives don't need to be based on a "material universe." — praxis

What I'm saying is that if you are thoroughly consistent in following a mechanistic/materialistic understanding of the world, then nihilism is the logically necessary conclusion. There's no other option. That doesn't mean a specifically religious stance is the only counter, it just means that as the religious basis for viewing the world fades, and so long as nothing else (e.g. no other religious type, or no alternative naturalistic understanding of the world) replaces it, then we're going to drift into nihilism.

And then, as I said, I don't think you can "freely construct" any old alternative over-arching narrative and have it take hold. Of course you can "freely construct" any old story about the universe, but the fact that you've constructed it doesn't make it true. People want to believe an over-arching story that they think is true - in fact, people thinking the materialistic/mechanistic view of the universe is true is precisely what's driving the drift to nihilism.

I agree with you on the positive aspect of not relying on external authority, if by that you mean unquestioning reliance on authority. That's definitely a gain, but it's not really relevant to the main point. Certainly people in the past believed authority - but again, they believed authority because they trusted the authority was telling them the truth. (It was just a form of reliance on expertise.) Now that science is the authority that's replaced religion, science is telling us the world is intrinsically meaningless. But perhaps the new authority is just as mistaken as the old.

Personally, I love living life, and I truly enjoy the pleasures of joy, camaraderie, whatever other good things occur throughout life. However, I do still feel living is somewhat pointless. Why slave all the hours of the day away working, studying, whatever, just to die one day? — Open-minded Opossum

Who says that you're supposed to be doing all that for some future advantage? What if it's just for itself?

It is.

It needn't and doesn't have other purpose or meaning.

This notion of living for the future is, of course, a big cause of much unhappiness and dis-satisfaction.

To have everything forgotten. Every accomplishment you've worked so hard to achieve. Everything gone forever.

What's wrong with that, if it was just for itself, for play, or Lila, as the Hindus say?

Well, unless it turns out the afterlife is a legitimate thing

"Legitimate" vs "Illegitimate" isn't the distinction, Your temporary life is legitimate too.

But I've been saying the sleep at the end of lives is our usual, normal and natural state of affairs, because it's life's final outcome, and because it's timeless.

, but until there is some sort of scientific evidence I won't believe in that fully.

I assure you that there will never be scientific evidence of anything other than the interactions of the objects in this physical world--a subject that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Of course, the joys of life are enough to continue living, but as a human being the only thing we live for is to reproduce and to aid our species.

No, that's just from natural-selection's point-of-view. From your own point of view, you do what you do because you like to. There' s no other reason, justification, purpose or meaning--nor need or should there be.

And sure it's temporary, but so what? Then enjoy it while you're in it. The fact that it will eventually be over, why should that be a problem? When the time for the peaceful rest and sleep at the end of lives arrives, what's wrong with that?

As Ender's Game says, humans are ultimately just tools, and the entire life we live is just to further our species. It's sad when I think about it that way.

That's a sad, unhappy and unrealistic way to regard life. See above.

Michael Ossipoff

Although I can relate to your stance to some extent, given that I am against anti-natalism and some kinds of nihilism - and yes, I endorse and encourage seizing the day - I think that you go about it the wrong way, given some of the assertions that you make in your opening post, a few of which are quite controversial, and, in my opinion, go too far in the opposite direction.

I do not agree that "life is good in itself". I think that that statement is either false or meaningless. It certainly does not accord with my own reflections on the matter, nor with typical thinking on the matter, which tends to accept without objection that there is, or are, or at least can be, x, y, z, and so on, which are good in life, and which can, under the right circumstances, make life good. It is this context or relation which provides meaning.

I also do not agree with your assertion that "the upsides outweigh the downsides". I certainly wouldn't make that claim worded as strongly as you have worded it, as though it is a matter of fact. That isn't the kind of thing that should just be asserted without any accompanying details of how you have reached such a conclusion. This was noticeably absent from your opening post, yet you should have known that it would need addressing and would be questioned. Or, if it is more a matter of opinion, then you should have taken more care with your wording. One might say, for instance, that for me, the upsides outweigh the downsides - and I would find that perfectly acceptable.

Ha, what a coincidence. I just discovered Jordan Peterson earlier today on YouTube, independent of your bringing him up here. Will have to check that video out.

Perhaps you're just deliberately being a dick? The possibilities are endless. — gurugeorge

I stated quite clearly that my interest is in trying to understand what you're saying and your unusual language interferes with that aim. I've given no reason for you to doubt this.

civilized discourse normally proceeds under the assumption of charity of interpretation — gurugeorge

I've demonstrated generous effort in my attempts to decipher your unique phrasings.

you don't have to subscribe to intelligent design in order to understand examples of what must necessarily be construed as "as if" teleology on the basis of a materialistic/mechanistic understanding of nature, as examples of real teleology. — gurugeorge

You seem to distinguish 'real' teleology from 'as if' teleology by whether or not there exists an intelligent designer, yes? An intelligent designer is real teleology and 'as if' is merely the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes. If so, the problem here is that this leads to an eternal regress. If there is an intelligent designer, where did they come from? Were they designed or did they come to exist through some natural mechanistic process? If the designer was designed, who designed the designer of the designer...

It seems to me these are just different ways of looking at causal relationships: one with conscious intention and the other without, neither is more real than the other.

What I'm saying is that if you are thoroughly consistent in following a mechanistic/materialistic understanding of the world, then nihilism is the logically necessary conclusion. There's no other option. That doesn't mean a specifically religious stance is the only counter, it just means that as the religious basis for viewing the world fades, and so long as nothing else (e.g. no other religious type, or no alternative naturalistic understanding of the world) replaces it, then we're going to drift into nihilism. — gurugeorge

You appear to contradict yourself within this paragraph by claiming that a mechanistic/materialistic understanding of the world necessarily results in nihilism and then saying that some sort of naturalistic understanding of the world could replace a "specifically religious stance." Naturalistic and mechanistic/materialistic are pretty much synonymous in this context, are they not?

And then, as I said, I don't think you can "freely construct" any old alternative over-arching narrative and have it take hold. — gurugeorge

Have you by chance heard of Scientology?

Of course you can "freely construct" any old story about the universe, but the fact that you've constructed it doesn't make it true. — gurugeorge

It doesn't need to be true. It only needs to be meaningful.

in fact, people thinking the materialistic/mechanistic view of the universe is true is precisely what's driving the drift to nihilism. — gurugeorge

That's a simplistic theory, not a fact.

I agree with you on the positive aspect of not relying on external authority, if by that you mean unquestioning reliance on authority. That's definitely a gain, but it's not really relevant to the main point. — gurugeorge

The freedom to discover or construct our own narratives and meaning in life is irrelevant to your main point? If I'm not mistaken, your main point centers around your claim that once religious belief erodes, due to scientific discoveries that contradict religious doctrine, like evolution, for example, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe.

You mentioned yourself that some sort of naturalistic understanding of the world could replace a "specifically religious stance" and avert a drift into nihilism.

You seem to distinguish 'real' teleology from 'as if' teleology by whether or not there exists an intelligent designer, yes? — praxis

No, I just said no in the very passage you quote. But perhaps the "phrasing" was too "unique" for you ;) (I'm beginning to wonder if you think I'm a religious believer? It seems like you're arguing as one might argue against a religious believer. Just because I have some kind, positive things to say about religion, and I don't think the standard rationalist counter-arguments to the classical arguments for God are as slam-dunk as rationalists tend to think they are, doesn't mean that I am myself a believer :) )

Naturalistic and mechanistic/materialistic are pretty much synonymous in this context, are they not? — praxis

No, as implied by the word "alternative."

It doesn't need to be true. It only needs to be meaningful. — praxis

Well that's just where we disagree. People trust that science is true. Science says the universe is intrinsically meaningless. No amount of ginned-up "meaningfulness" is going to override that, it's just whistling in the dark.

You mentioned yourself that some sort of naturalistic understanding of the world could replace a "specifically religious stance" and avert a drift into nihilism. — praxis

Yes I think that's possible, but it couldn't be the current mechanistic/materialistic version of naturalism. It would have to be something like the Aristotelian/Stoic naturalistic understanding (which gives context and meaning to material/efficient causes as something like "phases" or "moments" of final cause, which could be something intrinsic to the universe whether it's intelligently designed or not). That would put science in a broader context, so the intrinsic meaninglessness of the universe from science's point of view would be understood simply as an artifact of its self-imposed methodological limitations (sc. its specific focus on quantity and measurability).

Another possibility is some kind of "non-duality" as in Advaita Vedanta, some forms of Buddhism, Daoism, etc. I've toyed with that a lot from time to time over the years and I think it's a live option, particularly in the context of some kind of Externalism re. mind. It might even be possible to blend aspects of the Aristotelian understanding with it.

BUT, again, these kinds of alternatives would only be a viable counterweight to nihilism if they were true.