Nothing imbued me with a shirt. I'm still wearing one; it's not an illusion. — Kenosha Kid

How can I possibly cope with such soaring rhetoric? Obviously I'm well out of my depth here.

Okay then. X is not given to us by a creator. We are not born with X. Does it follow that X is, at best, an illusion?

What is the secret to being happy in a foxhole? — baker

I don't think there is one. We are vulnerable, weak, and even pathetic creatures -- invulnerability, happiness in spite of circumstances, is a myth. When life is miserable then it makes sense that we are too.

It is a pathetically simplistic statement. Bearing in mind, this is an Internet forum, many of the exchanges are squeezed into the dimensions of a twitter post, we still have to allow for the dimensions of the question at hand.

The point about philosophical materialism is that any notion of meaning is at best a biological adaptation. And don’t take my word for that. Read the evangelical atheists - Alex Rosenberg, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the like.

We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. — Richard Dawkins

Strictly speaking, of course, ‘astonishment’ is itself simply a byproduct of adrenaline and ought to be given no especial significance (unless, of course, it’s an unconscious echo of Dawkin’s Anglican ancestry which might be mined for a bit of irony.) But that’s what the scientifically-literate atheists are seeking to persuade us of. If you feel that they’re wrong by all means feel free to correct them.

But in the absence of that, it doesn't come naturally, I don't think. — Wayfarer

Then you have a low opinion of humanity. Which, considering religion dehumanizes at every point, is unsurprising. This is of course, built into religious strategy - paint the human as a wretched, fallen creature, all the more in need of saving. It's cult mechanics, employed by abusers everywhere to foster a sense of dependency - writ large by religion.

It is a pathetically simplistic statement. — Wayfarer

Which? This:

if what materialism says is true - if we are a kind of 'rogue chemical reaction', the outcome of a 'collocation of atoms', as Bertrand Russell put it- then any idea of meaning is basically an illusion. — Wayfarer

? Agreed, but there's nothing wrong with starting simple and refining it as we go (this is how science proceeds, for instance, a huge improvement over having to get it right first time and stick to it regardless of its increasing apparent silliness).

So if materialism says we're not given meaning by a creator, and let's assume we're not given meaning by our genetics (unless you don't want to assume that), we're still not necessarily deprived of meaning. The argument, as you presented it, needs refining at least, perhaps discarding. Is there anything missing from it that would deprive us of meaning?

The point about philosophical materialism is that any notion of meaning is at best a biological adaptation. — Wayfarer

Another simplistic statement, and very wrong. There's no biological adaptation for watching Netflix, painting Warhammer miniatures, reading one book and not another, having roast beef only on Sundays, or any of the other myriad things we spend our time on, nor is there any claim for such. Biological adaptation specifies our capacities: it cannot dictate outcomes, like finding a particular meaning, or not.

Strictly speaking, of course, ‘astonishment’ is itself simply a byproduct of adrenaline and ought to be given no especial significance (unless, of course, it’s an unconscious echo of Dawkin’s Anglican ancestry which might be mined for a bit of irony.) But that’s what the scientifically-literate atheists are seeking to persuade us of. If you feel that they’re wrong by all means feel free to correct them. — Wayfarer

Hopefully this isn't a pile on Wayfarer thing. :smile:

Isn't that a bit of a crude apologist style argument, based around pushing the point too far? I think the atheists would argue that meaning exists because we are meaning making animals who endlessly invent things - a range of loose, shared meanings being amongst these inventions, which include mores and morals. We also have evolved to have empathy (how else could we rear our young?). We have invented whole worlds and landscapes of meaning despite the lack of an obvious transcendent one. These meanings still matter to us and our emotional lives and have a continuing traction and relevance, even if they do evolve over time. Do we need more than this?

This is of course, built into religious strategy - paint the human as a wretched, fallen creature, all the more in need of saving. It's cult mechanics, employed by abusers everywhere to foster a sense of dependency - writ large by religion. — StreetlightX

Judaism doesn't do this, and I'd be interested to hear from a Christian how pervasive this idea is and what role is plays across different forms of Christianity. I'd also be interested to hear what Muslims think of this given they don't believe in original sin.

Hindus and Buddhists welcome to chime in as well.

So if materialism says we're not given meaning by a creator, and let's assume we're not given meaning by our genetics (unless you don't want to assume that), we're still not necessarily deprived of meaning. — Kenosha Kid

It's a matter of underwriting meaning - not simply 'making it up'. Buddhists don't believe they are 'given meaning by a Creator' but they nevertheless accept there is dharma, that is, moral law, and a meaning beyond the endless caravan of birth and death, saṃsāra.

We also have evolved to have empathy (how else could we rear our young?). — Tom Storm

I really don't believe in evolutionary basis for ethics. Of course humans evolved, but compassion can't be meaningfully explained as a biological adaptation, or rather, if it is, then it has no inherent meaning. Humans seek for something more than simply the mechanics of successful propogation, that's part of what makes us human.

I can't wrap my head around one thing. God, according to theists, imbues our lives with meaning.
— TheMadFool

It's more that: if what materialism says is true - if we are a kind of 'rogue chemical reaction', the outcome of a 'collocation of atoms', as Bertrand Russell put it- then any idea of meaning is basically an illusion. — Wayfarer

Indeed, true or not, I feel that Synergy is applicable to some systems and that,

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. — Aristotle

Though biology sees us as "sacks of chemistry" as Neil deGrasse Tyson says, it still must contend with the plain and simple truth that we're not just "sacks of chemistry". There's so much more to us than that.

The analogy I like to use is that of a building. Yes, the floor on top supervenes on the floor below but each floor has its own thing going on, its own unique characteristics, its own perspective as it were to reality. Likewise, though the mind depends on biology and biology depends on chemistry, so and so forth, each of these levels must be treated as fully legit areas of concern/study.

If ...free will is important ...it's more reasonable to assume that God would grant us full self-determination which means we're at liberty to pick n choose our own purpose, our very own meaning, suited to our tastes and temperament.
— TheMadFool

That is actually what mainstream Christianity believes.

let God dictate your life's choices
— TheMadFool

And that isn't. — Wayfarer

:ok:

Hopefully this isn't a pile on Wayfarer thing. :smile: — Tom Storm

Good point. So...

I think the atheists would argue that meaning exists because we are meaning making animals who endlessly invent things - a range of loose, shared meanings being amongst these inventions, which include mores and morals. — Tom Storm

I'm an atheist (and a physicalist), but even with my protest to I'm not claiming to have meaning or believe that anyone else does beyond the sort of illusion he refers to. My point is more that, if meaning is an illusion, it must be shown to be so with something more thorough than "Neither God nor evolution gave it to us," which misses out a lot, for instance most of culture.

The existentialists hold meaning as something you arrive at: it's personal, perhaps even unique, like a fingerprint or your DNA. There's also a compelling argument that the language is itself meaningless: it borrows a concept that is well-defined in theism but doesn't really have a correlate in a Godless world.

A good way of approaching the question imo is anthropologically: do humans tend to behave as if their life has meaning, not just value? There are people for whom this seems to be true, but they are likely exceptional. I doubt that I, being unexceptional, would live much of a different life whether it had meaning or not, which is as good an indicator as I can think of that it doesn't.

It's a matter of underwriting meaning - not simply 'making it up'. Buddhists don't believe they are 'given meaning by a Creator' but they nevertheless accept there is dharma, that is, moral law. — Wayfarer

So "illusion" was the wrong word, then. A refinement might go something like:

if what materialism says is true - if we are a kind of 'rogue chemical reaction', the outcome of a 'collocation of atoms', as Bertrand Russell put it- then any meaning is not underwritten. — Wayfarer

This seems to be approaching tautology now, but at least it's trivially true.

I hear you and I agree.

There are, of course, numerous Christian apologists (e.g., Matt Slick) who make the argument that atheism is self-refuting because no meaning or logic is possible if all that exists is just matter and chemistry behaving. Also since evolution is not about identifying truth, only what works for survival, then anything that comes out of an evolutionary perspective (e.g., anything by Dawkins) has no truth value. We've seen this one from some more sophisticated philosophers too.

I'm an atheist who finds meaning in the usual things, probably not much differently from theists and other non-believers. I think that's just what humans do. Calling any values 'underwritten' is just a labelling exercise - like having a brand of marmalade that is sold by 'appointment to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth' (reference for Commonwealth country folk).

Given people do precisely this, it must be true. I think for all the lofty talk about meaning requiring some transcendent foundation, I believe people obtain meaning from being in the world, interacting and doing things. Possessions, nature, music, food, friends, family, home, whatever you are into is where your meaning comes from. I believe this is true for theists and atheists alike. — Tom Storm

I agree. But theists tend to apply an unnecessary layer that wastes "life time" on irrelevant interpretations that lead nowhere. Atheism is Ockham's razor of meaning in life. The shortest path to a sense of clarity, the least clouded by confusion when worldviews get challenged.

you just can't handle people pointing out where you're wrong. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not though. People just say I'm wrong, they provide nothing substantial behind it. For around two weeks now, everyone whom I've been in discussion with on this forum radically fails at basic philosophical reasoning. It's just believers spewing out opinions and that they are right because "God" or whatever. It's getting rather tedious hearing the same thing over and over when so many, not just me, has already countered the lack of logic or knowledge in many of the claims.

It's rather all these people who are the ones not able to understand when they're wrong. I'm still waiting for true arguments to bounce off into the next argument. But I'm paddling in the manure of biases and fallacies.

If you want to defend the point, great, but like you say this is a philosophy forum and posts like your last aren't going to cut it: that's just tantrum-throwing. — Kenosha Kid

Let's start with everyone else supporting their counter-argument first, please. I can either roll my thumbs waiting or just continue to ask for something substantial.

If you don't feel inclined to defend the point, just have some dignity and move on peacefully. If you're just trying to pick a moronic fight, well carry on as you are I guess. I'm here to discuss the matter, including the finer details. For the record, I considered the matter closed several posts ago. — Kenosha Kid

The cherry-picked portion of my argument had to do with religion and its bloody history compared to atheism. Now, theists really love to mash together communism and atheism to make the point that "atheism is worse", which, by looking at the actual mechanics behind the communist movement throughout the 20th century, shows that it has nothing to do with atheism, it's not "part of the murdering", it's rather a way to create guilt by association to a political movement with their own doctrines, in no shape or form linked to atheism just because there wasn't a religion at the core of communism. Just like religion, the communism and corruption of Marxist theories of the 20th century act out as a form of institution, almost by religious standards. Atheism isn't an institution, there is no "church of atheism". There can be atheistic organizations that have a place of gathering, focused primarily on giving guidance to those seeking to move away from religion, but there's no single "church" or institution or a gathering of rituals, rules, laws, principles etc. There are nothing binding atheists together as a form of "method of life". So to blame atheism for murders throughout history makes zero sense whatsoever and is a straw-manning attempt at attacking atheism whenever the notion of "religion's bloody history" is being brought up. The bloody history of religion is, however, very documented. The suffering, terror, prosecution, mass murder, torture etc. for thousands of years, throughout many different types of religious beliefs and institutions that through rules, laws, practices, and principles gathered a group behavior into these acts. It's the entire nature of religious institutions and doctrines to force behavior onto the practitioner of that belief system and it's been a source of power over the people for as long as human history. Atheism is a rejection of all of that and the antithesis of it makes it impossible to be a "reason" for mass murder. Someone murdering "in the name of atheism" doesn't really refer to anything.

So, anyone claiming either that religion doesn't have a bloody history, or that Atheism is responsible for more terror and murders than religion, really needs to prove those points with some actual logic, history, and support. Straw-manning atheism in an attempt to shift blame from religion to atheism is fundamentally stupid and childish and an insult to the intellect of those who actually just paid attention to the information, knowledge, and records of history we have.

I considered this matter to be closed years ago. Believers still seem to form a sound reasonable argument that doesn't use every bias and fallacy in the book to reach its conclusion. It's tiresome and I rather just sum up the conclusion with theists are wrong in this matter, period. End of discussion, until an unbiased, sound argument is made with an antithesis to this.

But in the absence of that, it doesn't come naturally, I don't think. — Wayfarer

Life is hard, but religion really makes it more confusing and harder, requiring someone to accept a "truth" without proof. Either people are idiots and accept such a truth without questioning it, or they try to understand it, spending years of their life in search of an explanation behind that truth, only to sometimes come to the conclusion that it was just made up by people throughout history and that there's nothing more to it. It's a great waste of a lifetime. Why not just make it "less hard" and accept things around and in the universe, for what they are or what we can perceive them as? The rest is just irrelevant time-wasting noise.

then any idea of meaning is basically an illusion. — Wayfarer

Any meaning that has some cosmic objectivity, yes, not meaning as invented, felt, and built by us humans for us humans. It's the "cosmic meaning" that is both non-existent and irrelevant.

It's just a comfort blanket for theists to crawl under. The universe is mind-blowingly big and we are so impossibly small in comparisons that they just can't accept that we are basically the same as bacteria on a cosmic scale. They can't wrap their heads around these things, so they pull the blank over their heads and tell themselves that there truly is a cosmic meaning to their existence. It's the same reason why religions came to be in the first place, we've just scaled up the knowledge of the world around us into the size of the universe and its timeline. Before, we tried to explain thunder, couldn't, needed some comforting explanation so we invented thunder gods. Crops died unexpectedly, so we invented agricultural gods. And so on. Then it was just easier to use one God for everything. A basic "god works in mysterious ways" to sum up all the shit we can't explain and you're all setup and ordered the comfort blanket ultra mega 2000 experience package, with some action figures of prophets and downloadable content with predictions for the end of time, so you don't have to think about your meaningless and upcoming death.

It's basic psychology really.

Also since evolution is not about identifying truth, only what works for survival, then anything that comes out of an evolutionary perspective (e.g., anything by Dawkins) has no truth value. — Tom Storm

Aye, which is clearly wrong, since most of the things I'm looking at right now as I wait for this bus weren't biologically selected for (just the trees and bushes really), hence shirts.

Which was my point to Wayfarer: whether or not meaning is illusory is an interesting question. "If there's no God, it must be" is not a good answer.

I'm an atheist who finds meaning in the usual things, probably not much differently from theists and other non-believers. I think that's just what humans do. Calling any values 'underwritten' is just a labelling exercise - like having a brand of marmalade that is sold by 'appointment to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth' (reference for Commonwealth country folk). — Tom Storm

Yeah, mostly. That said, I think the word means something different to creationists than to, say, the French existentialists. Creationists believe that humans are an outcome of a teleological process, and 'meaning' here largely denotes 'higher purpose'. Sartre's idea of meaning is non-teleological and individualist, more like 'personal values'. How we use the word dictates our conclusions: for Wayfarer, 'meaning' is apparently "underwritten" by definition. There's no analogue of that in atheism or, to date, physicalism.

Let's start with everyone else supporting their counter-argument first, please. I can either roll my thumbs waiting or just continue to ask for something substantial. — Christoffer

I can see how you'd like that to work, but that's not how it works. Claims aren't true until proven otherwise. Since you are unwilling to defend your point, no one else is obliged to disprove it. That which is claimed without justification can be dismissed without justification. I also reject the idea that your above performance was anything like an entreatment for naysayers to expound upon their views. It was infantile tantrum-throwing and nothing more, quite obstructive to the sorts of detail you now claim to want.

I can see how you'd like that to work, but that's not how it works. Claims aren't true until proven otherwise. Since you are unwilling to defend your point, no one else is obliged to disprove it. — Kenosha Kid

Which is why I provided it if you bothered to read it.

It was infantile tantrum-throwing and nothing more, quite obstructive to the sorts of detail you now claim to want. — Kenosha Kid

I write maybe ten times longer posts than most in here and a majority of each post is the actual arguments. Then things get cherry-picked, conclusions ignored, and I'm drawn into explaining things that have been explained to absurd lengths in many threads on this forum, by many others including me, that to stay on the topic of the current thread, we just point out the conclusion of those countless other posts. But I provided a sum up, I still like to hear the counter-argument to that logic, but I suspect it becomes the usual "straw-manning atheism" thing again, which I'm not interested in because it's frankly stupid and beneath me to put time and effort into saying the same things over and over to people so blinded by their own belief biases that they cannot form tangible arguments.

If you have anything to counterargue what I just wrote in the previous post, please do that, because I'm tired of infantile belief arguments that would never pass basic philosophical scrutiny or believers just saying I'm wrong without any further elaboration. I'm still waiting for anything substantial.

If you have anything to counterargue what I just wrote in the previous post, please do that, because I'm tired of infantile belief arguments that would never pass basic philosophical scrutiny or believers just saying I'm wrong without any further elaboration. I'm still waiting for anything substantial. — Christoffer

As am I. To be clear, I'm an atheist with a strong dislike for religion. But claims like 'most wars in human history have been religious wars' need to rest on more than having atheism in common. In no sense have you supported your claim, and this shouldn't be too surprising given a) your unnecessary hostility toward disagreement, b) your preference for expansive complaints over a single sentence of justification, and c) your inconstant attitude to whether the problem is that people are focusing too much on this one thing or aren't going into enough detail.

Let's take what should be an easy example for you: jihad. On the one hand, nothing could be a better example of the warlike nature of religiosity than something that calls itself Holy War and whose Cyberman-like message is 'convert or die/be raped'. It's written there in their primary text, so no escaping it.

And yet, for the most part, Islam has been and remains a particularly peaceful, sophisticated religion. If 1001 people read the same book, 1000 think "peace" and 1 thinks "kill", is the religion accounting for the war, or the difference between that 1 and the other 1000?

No one is arguing that religion isn't an enabler for war, it clearly is. But you have to show that religion is the reason for war to pin it on theism, and that's not possible. The Church definitely has an insane amount of blood on its hands, but the history of the Church can be exemplified more succinctly with the word "power" than with the word "piety". It was a powerful, violently expansive state, with more in common with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union than with, say, Buddhist Tibet or Jainism. The common denominator in all war is definitely not religion, and the common denominator of all religions is not war.

But claims like 'most wars in human history have been religious wars' need to rest on more than having atheism in common. — Kenosha Kid

Because it's taken out of context of that post. The claim is in relation to atheism, to atheism being linked to violence and blood when the statistics or religious violence is quite clearly higher going through the history books. It was a summed up sentence but should have maybe pointed out "violence" instead of war since it seems like it confuses more than "violence".

In no sense have you supported your claim, and this shouldn't be too surprising given a) your unnecessary hostility toward disagreement, b) your preference for expansive complaints over a single sentence of justification, and c) your inconstant attitude to whether the problem is that people are focusing too much on this one thing or aren't going into enough detail. — Kenosha Kid

I literally expanded on that part of the original argument, because it's linked to the argument that atheism is being blamed for more murder and violence than religion. I lifted the logic that you have religious doctrines that easily come in conflict with other doctrines and practices and therefore are prone to conflict, while atheism does not have any binding doctrines or practices to stand behind, it's rather a lack of it. This means there's a logical gap when blaming atheism for violence and murder in history, compared to what religion has caused. This is the argument.

In no sense have you countered this logic.

Let's take what should be an easy example for you: jihad. On the one hand, nothing could be a better example of the warlike nature of religiosity than something that calls itself Holy War and whose Cyberman-like message is 'convert or die/be raped'. It's written there in their primary text, so no escaping it.

And yet, for the most part, Islam has been and remains a particularly peaceful, sophisticated religion. If 1001 people read the same book, 1000 think "peace" and 1 thinks "kill", is the religion accounting for the war, or the difference between that 1 and the other 1000? — Kenosha Kid

Compared to not reading the book at all? And being a peaceful religion can also mean that it is peaceful within itself, that if the community or society with it as its foundation, it may be peaceful if all worship under it because it becomes homogeneous and has no freethinkers or critics.

The problem arises whenever you have someone questioning the status quo. Human history is filled with violence attributed to when people question the status quo, and there's nothing more "deep core" of a status quo than religion being a foundation of a society. Questioning or confronting another nation/people with other religious beliefs almost always led to bloody conflicts. And since religion isn't a political theory, it isn't something that can be argued and converted easily into something new or different, because it is at the core of the heart of every person in such a society, questioning it means, in their eyes, questioning existence itself and it's a threat that feels like being about survival instead of intellectual discourse.

The argument I made was that religion causes violence far more than the lack of religion. The mechanics of religion almost forces people into conflict whenever there's a different voice that doesn't follow that specific religion. This is because religion finds its way into the core values of a person much more than any other system of knowledge. It more easily corrupts and more easily controls people. It can make them utterly abandon all intellect to do as a text says. It works in a bubble, but introducing another element almost always leads to conflict.

If you take what I wrote out of context, of course, it becomes problematic, but that was not my argument, it was in relation to the view on atheism as a violent "church". And the logic I present here is the logic of how religion works and why it leads to a conflict far more than anything else.

Add to that the actual number of cases of religious violence and wars rooted in conflicting religious views and you have everything in support of this right there.

The common denominator in all war is definitely not religion, and the common denominator of all religions is not war. — Kenosha Kid

And this has never been stated or said by me. It is a simplification of what I actually argue. If people cherry-pick stuff from my argument and make further simplifications of it, you might begin to understand my frustration here. It's straw-manning after straw-manning without really reading what I actually write and understanding it before forming a counterargument. Because of this, I get oversimplifications like the one you wrote there and that this is somehow what I meant in my text? How does any of what I write here conclude that all wars are religious and all religions are about war? Where did this come from?

But the meaninglessness of the game may be the very meaning that you are searching for. A Dadaesque rejection of reason and logic for irrationality and intuition, a Continental rather than analytic approach.

As Duchamp wrote: "All this twaddle, the existence of God, atheism, determinism, liberation, societies, death, etc., are pieces of a chess game called language, and they are amusing only if one does not preoccupy oneself with 'winning or losing this game of chess.” — RussellA

And, of course, he was sipping latte in the shade of his villa while he penned those thoughts, eh.

I'm an atheist (and a physicalist) — Kenosha Kid

What happened to you? Who did this to you? :joke:

I would add that philosophically, I find atheism barren, because the implications are that life is an absurdity - a thought Camus was very familiar with. — Wayfarer

My issue with atheism is that it's a fairweather friend. Atheism, and along with it, hedonism, nihilism, pessimism are all fine and well -- as long as health and wealth last. But they are not conducive to living a productive life, and they are especially not conducive to rebuilding one's life once health and wealth are lost.

What is important about religion is finding the source of what Christians call agapé, unconditional compassion, and what Buddhists call bodhicitta

Why do you think this is important?

Okay then. X is not given to us by a creator. We are not born with X. Does it follow that X is, at best, an illusion? — Kenosha Kid

Not if the creator has a thing for tormenting some of his children. Why on earth should the creator abide by the motto of the French revolution?!

When I got home a friend asked if I'm religious now. I replied sincerely: fuck off. — Christoffer

Not that I wished this upon you, but it would be more relevant for the OP topic to see your reaction and your attitude toward life if the accident would leave you permanently and severely disabled. If you could still be so cheerfully saying that life is meanigless.

EDIT: I seem to be largely defending religion atm. I have no explanation for that. — Kenosha Kid

We're at a philosophy forum, where critical thinking shall reign supreme!

Empirically proving what a particular war was (actually) about is virtually impossible. So as much as one might dislike religion, there are things one cannot say about it without thereby losing one's self-respect as a lover of wisdom.

It's so interesting to see you all focusing on this out of the entirety of my argument. It's like you don't get my point whatsoever. — Christoffer

I didn't think I had anything of interest to offer about your entire argument. It's not something I have strong feelings about. On the other hand, I am quick to pick up on specious arguments against religion, "the church starts all the wars" in particular.

On topic, I'd never really considered the fact that the whole notion of 'no atheists in foxholes' is a comment less about atheists than it is about religion - the fact that religion is what one turns to when one is in a desperate, base situation of immanent death. — StreetlightX

But is this really a fact?
Do you know of any study that shows that in the face of grave danger or hardship, (previously non-religious) people tend to turn to religion, and, more importantly, find solace in it?

I suppose that in the face of grave danger or hardship, many people probably do consider religion, but I doubt many find solace in it, or only for a relatively short time.

(For example, a Hare Krishna insider told me that by their informal estimate, 80% of newly joined people leave within their first five years in the religion.)

As far as life being an absurdity without religion, I find the opposite to the case - that religion appeals to the fascist in all of us, who wants to be told what to do by way of some prior cosmic ordering. It is a trembling before freedom, rooted in fear, expressed in the arrogation of tribal campfire stories to cosmic proportion. — StreetlightX

I don't see religion that way at all. I grew in a monoreligious monoculture. From what I've seen, religious people don't care about the religious teachings at all; it's all just for show and keeping up appearances, apparently for the purpose of playing power games and maintaining social order. These people live artfully crafted double lives: with an official, public face, and a private one that is quite unaffected by the public one. Those who end up troubled and traumatized are the ones who weren't able to build and maintain this dichotomy.

I suppose things are different for religious people who live as religious minorities, or in religiously diverse cultures.

That's true but you can have religious empires so the question is where to draw the line between the empire building and the religion as the source.
I think its a worthwhile distinction to make. — DingoJones

Agreed.

Looking at the list in Wikipedia, it seems to me that most wars are caused by empire building, even when the entities involved have strong religious connections, e.g. the Muslim expansion into India. I would be interested to hear differing opinions from someone who knows better than I.

Looking at the list in Wikipedia, it seems to me that most wars are caused by empire building — T Clark

Sure, but whence this desire to build an empire, whence the motivation for it, whence the justification for the killing, raping, and pillaging?

It does seem that it is religion that gives people those: "You are God's chosen people, therefore, you can take from others, even with lethal force, but others may not take from you."

The game is played using one's free play of imagination and understanding, one's reason and logic in harmony with one's irrationality and intuition. In this foxhole of sometimes crisis and chaos, rather than timorously looking outwards for imagined support and consolation, to look courageously inwards in order to find the strength in the reality of one's own existence.

IE, meaning comes from playing the game using the human spirit of imagination and understanding. — RussellA

But the religious can actually say the same thing!