:up: Theism is existential cowardice writ large.

You cannot compare the meaning of life as understood by a creationist to that of a Buddhist, or an atheist, or a simulationist, since the values of each kind of meaning differ from reference frame to reference frame. — Kenosha Kid

Which simply implies conflict and confusion, as far as I can see, which is writ large in this thread.

Trying to get back to the point I wanted to make. Religion, generally, encodes ideas about the nature of meaning in mythological forms, to try and tell the story in an allegorical manner. Clearly the allegories of religion are out-moded by the circumstances of modern culture. But what was it, that was encoded in those allegories in the first place? And if the allegorical representation of those ideas are discarded, what is discarded with them?

Such horrors are portrayed by writers such as Lovecraft for example. Where the ones who dares to open their eyes to the actual truth of the cosmos rarely had their minds intact. — Christoffer

I read one Lovecraft novel many decades ago. I was very much moved by it. The idea he had of discovering other domains of being through dream-states I found very evocative. Unfortunately however Lovecraft's vision was essentially demonic in nature, as if the forces he intuited were utterly alien to humanity. But I think Lovecraft's idea of there being kind of parallel planes of being that interpenetrate with our own is completely plausible, in fact, I'm sure he drew on the grand tradition of mythology and occult religion as a source of inspiration for his (unfortunately deviate) stories.

And if the allegorical representation of those ideas are discarded, what is discarded with them? — Wayfarer

Your inability to function - much less think - without a mythic crutch does not warrant an arrogation of this impotence to cosmic proportions. Much less make the basis of rendering judgements upon other modes of ethics that do not find their raison d'etre in a dearth of imagination.

Trying to get back to the point I wanted to make. Religion, generally, encodes ideas about the nature of meaning in mythological forms, to try and tell the story in an allegorical manner. Clearly the allegories of religion are out-moded by the circumstances of modern culture. But what was it, that was encoded in those allegories in the first place? And if the allegorical representation of those ideas are discarded, what is discarded with them? — Wayfarer

The allegory, the power of religious writing as stories, is not the same as belief in the supernatural or God/Gods. You can have stories, they can be powerful. We have stories all around us in literature, movies, games, music, art etc. With great imagination and powerful emotions. All of these make us examine life and existence.

There's a difference though, when someone believes allegorical stories and fantasy to be truth rather than fiction. To interpret allegory and stories as being true in themselves. This is a religious belief.
It's no less valid than starting to believe in the Avengers as actually existing deities protecting our world. To interpret the Marvel cinematic universe as factual representations rather than allegories.

This is done out of fear. Instead of using allegory to give perspective in order to figure out a meaning in life, it is taken literally in order to give the responsibility to a higher power to figure that out. Instead of me understanding Iron Man's journey through the Marvel cinematic story, and because of this allegory, get a new perspective on life, I take the story literally and actually believe Iron Man is out there figuring all this shit out. This is one of the main problems with theism.

Unfortunately however Lovecraft's vision was essentially demonic in nature, as if the forces he intuited were utterly alien to humanity. — Wayfarer

Has nothing to do with demons. It is an allegory of how alien to our human perception the nature of reality actually is. Like our human vision only able to see a very small spectrum of light, if we were suddenly able to see all light spectrums it would blast our mind with such intensity of perception that we would go insane. It's an allegory for humanity's inability to stare into the extreme complexity of the universe and never be able to comprehend its enormous existence without going insane.

So the point is that it is alien to us, that's the whole point. It does however have nothing to do with "demons". Just like the movie Annihilation isn't about a demon coming to earth, but something truly alien and uncomprehensible. (Which in turn takes great inspiration from Color Out of Space)

But I think Lovecraft's idea of there being kind of parallel planes of being that interpenetrate with our own is completely plausible, in fact, I'm sure he drew on the grand tradition of mythology and occult religion as a source of inspiration for his (unfortunately deviate) stories. — Wayfarer

Why do you take Lovecraft literally? Like, why do you speak of it as plausible? It's fiction, it's a story, an allegory. It's like you are proving my point of religion being wrongly interpreted by theists and believers as truth when the texts are allegorical stories of fiction. The Bible and Necronomicon are the same kind of things: stories, allegory, fantasy, and tales to speak about the human condition. They are not the truth, they are meant to examine the behavior of humans in situations that put these humans under moral, emotional, and political pressure. It's storytelling, not reality.

Trying to get back to the point I wanted to make. Religion, generally, encodes ideas about the nature of meaning in mythological forms, to try and tell the story in an allegorical manner. Clearly the allegories of religion are out-moded by the circumstances of modern culture. But what was it, that was encoded in those allegories in the first place? And if the allegorical representation of those ideas are discarded, what is discarded with them? — Wayfarer

I'm an atheist but I get what you are communicating, your argument is nuanced and reflects philosophy, not dogma. I wonder if there's a way to reconcile the non-overlapping magisteria.

For me atheism is experiencing the radical absence of any transcendent guarantee. It comes with no pangs of dread or emptiness and absurdity makes only an occasional appearance.

Nobody can accuse Schopenhauer of being a religious apologist, and yet he too recognises the basic demand of the search for meaning. But he says that philosophy seeks that meaning through understanding, not through mere belief, although that is a distinction I guess won't get any traction here. — Wayfarer

I hope it does, you might yet see my point. Having an arbitrary belief of a particular teleological meaning isn't good enough. I'm not saying abandon anything, but you demonstrate an astonishing inability to gauge the value of your beliefs outside of the narrow framework you acquired them in. Your average ideologue can probably handle the "and what if such and such a belief isn't true" okay, simply because there's less fear surrounding doubt. Since your idea of philosophy is ad hominem, i.e. largely to quote somebody important saying the thing you want others to believe, here's another:

I have often said that if science proves facts that conflict with Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change accordingly. We should always adopt a view that accords with the facts. If upon investigation we find that there is reason and proof for a point, then we should accept it. However, a clear distinction should be made between what is not found by science and what is found to be nonexistent by science. What science finds to be nonexistent we should all accept as nonexistent, but what science merely does not find is a completely different matter. An example is consciousness itself. Although sentient beings, including humans, have experienced consciousness for centuries, we still do not know what consciousness actually is: its complete nature and how it functions. — Lamarana14

The Dalai Lama can get his head around the idea that the teachings of his religion can be erroneous and subject to change. You can't get your head around the idea that the meaning of life you're taught isn't even worth a ha'penny to those not so taught. Similarly...

That's a clear statement of relativism. — Wayfarer

I gather you're using "relativism" much as right-wingers use "woke". You know that's only a negative term to absolutists, right? It's not a thing that needs to be defended. If you are sitting down right now, the altitude that you are sitting at depends on the height of whatever you're sitting on. Same thing. Of course it's a clear statement of relativism, I used the words "relative to" :groan:

The point about any kind of philosophical hermenuetic is to try and discern what factor, if anything, they are pointing at, so as to disclose a larger truth. — Wayfarer

Which is incompatible with the idea that the loss of a particular artefact of a particular religion or ideology that has zero value elsewhere must be protected and vouchsafed for its own sake.

Which is incompatible with the idea that the loss of a particular artefact of a particular religion or ideology that has zero value elsewhere must be protected and vouchsafed for its own sake. — Kenosha Kid

I think it's best to say that no one system has all the answers and that value can be found across many different religious/belief systems. Obviously there's a huge difference between trying to destroy the remnants of e.g. Nazi statues and Buddhist statues that are a thousands of years old.

I don't know too much about Buddhism and I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist, but I also acknowledge that Buddhism likely has value even if I'm not too familiar with the actual teachings and practice. I'm granting an allowance here, sue me. Even if it doesn't have value to me at the moment, it might have legitimate value to someone else and I have to respect that.

I would still protect Buddhist statues to the point of using lethal force if I saw others trying to destroy them because the destroyers don't have the right to do that even if they really, thoroughly believe Buddhism to be wrong. I don't care if someone 100% believes Buddhism is wrong (and admittedly there are concepts in Buddhism that I don't agree with) -- those statues get protected because humans don't have all the answers and they can't possibly have them no matter how smart people think they are. My value system places ancient religious statues above the types of people who would actively try to destroy them so using lethal force wouldn't bother me in that instance.

So much of it just comes down to having a basic modicum of humility and understanding that maybe one's own narrow scope of knowledge and beliefs could be wrong and that there are other legitimate approaches out there. Or one could plant their foot in the ground and behave as if they have all the answers and therefore anything outside of that truth becomes falsehood and essentially valueless.

I'm glad you were alert to the statue subtext of the conversation :wink:

Buddhism likely has value even if I'm not too familiar with the actual teachings and practice. — BitconnectCarlos

It can't have much value to you since you haven't looked into it :p The value we're talking about here is philosophical though, more than decorative. I value churches, cathedrals, temples, statues, etc. too but they're not a reason to live your life according to a specific definition of religious meaning.

The Buddhist meaning of human life is comparable to the Christian one: both are transcendental, involving ascensions for the ethical and devout, which is unsurprising as both religions concern how the existence of different kinds of afterlife should dictate how we behave in this life. Remove that afterlife and the meaning disappears: the meaning only had value in those religious belief structures. Wayfarer believes this is a loss, and I'm just trying to get him to see that it could only be a loss if you believe in that meaning, in which case nothing is lost.

What is important about religion is finding the source of what Christians call agapé, unconditional compassion, and what Buddhists call bodhicitta, buried behind all the ruins of the ancient faiths. It is both the easiest and most elusive thing in the world. To turn your back on that because of religion is the cruelest irony. — Wayfarer

Not the least bit ironic because religion is not about agapé. That is not and never has been the core of it. Religion is about binding a community in shared values, norms, narratives, telos, etc.

What’s important in religion is knowing who’s holding the reins, and keeping in mind that power corrupts.

One imagines that the theist - for all his inventions of sky daddies and karmic mysteries - has a lack of imagination so severe that he has to invent a whole 'mythos' to cover over their total inability to recognize 'meaning' seeping through every pore of the universe without all that trash. — StreetlightX

Well said. :fire:

It can't have much value to you since you haven't looked into it — Kenosha Kid

I did look into it a while back, but what happens is once I find that I don't agree with the core premises of a system it generally prevents me from engaging further unless I need to understand it for some reason other than personal philosophy.

The value we're talking about here is philosophical though, more than decorative. — Kenosha Kid

Can we just clarify this concept of "philosophical value" here - what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that since e.g. ancient statues from lost cultures or tribal statues don't have "philosophical value" it's either okay to destroy them or not to maintain them? Can we just simplify this discussion and replace "philosophical value" with "reason?"

Can we just clarify this concept of "philosophical value" here - what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that since e.g. ancient statues from lost cultures or tribal statues don't have "philosophical value" it's either okay to destroy them or not to maintain them? Can we just simplify this discussion and replace "philosophical value" with "reason?" — BitconnectCarlos

No, I'm saying that something like "the meaning of life is to honour God so that he will let you into Heaven" has no value outside of religions where there's a God and a Heaven and an afterlife. Likewise the Buddhist meaning of life has no value in the absence of Nirvana. These sorts of meaning are binary and relative: they take on non-zero values only in the frames of the religions that beget them.

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss.

It doesn't really have anything to do with statues, sorry.

What is the secret to being happy in a foxhole? Probably, align your expectations with some one who is in a foxhole.

Your not, that's my point. It oughtn't be profound that what's at stake in terms of meaning is only considerable if you already are biased about what that meaning is. From within a particular ideology that makes claims about meaning, those meanings are important. But outside, other meanings are important, or none are important. — Kenosha Kid

Of course.

What's at stake is relative to what you believe.

But this thread is about the proverbial foxholes, those challenging situations that put to the test what one believes and holds dear.

You cannot compare the meaning of life as understood by a creationist to that of a Buddhist, or an atheist, or a simulationist, since the values of each kind of meaning differ from reference frame to reference frame.

Sure, and if a person can firmly hold their peace-time beliefs also once they are in a foxhole, then there's no problem for them.
But what if they can't?

The Buddhist meaning of human life is comparable to the Christian one: both are transcendental, involving ascensions for the ethical and devout, which is unsurprising as both religions concern how the existence of different kinds of afterlife should dictate how we behave in this life. Remove that afterlife and the meaning disappears: the meaning only had value in those religious belief structures. Wayfarer believes this is a loss, and I'm just trying to get him to see that it could only be a loss if you believe in that meaning, in which case nothing is lost. — Kenosha Kid

Of course, but, again, we're talking about the proverbial foxholes.

Since your idea of philosophy is ad hominem, i.e. largely to quote somebody important saying the thing you want others to believe — Kenosha Kid

Does he simply want others to believe it?
Or is that your projection?

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss. — Kenosha Kid

Actually, I'm not so sure he does believe them, because I think that if he did, he wouldn't be discussing them here, in such a manner. Personally, I think that if I would believe those things, I wouldn't be discussing them at a forum like this.

For me atheism is experiencing the radical absence of any transcendent guarantee. It comes with no pangs of dread or emptiness and absurdity makes only an occasional appearance. — Tom Storm

Of course. But atheism is predicated on relative material wellbeing. It's a fairweather friend.

Your inability to function - much less think - without a mythic crutch does not warrant an arrogation of this impotence to cosmic proportions. Much less make the basis of rendering judgements upon other modes of ethics that do not find their raison d'etre in a dearth of imagination. — StreetlightX

And yet all this self-reliance and self-sufficiency of the areligious individualist is built on the work of so many that came before him, including the religious. He didn't invent himself out of nothing.
Individualists are really just thankless brats, refusing to acknowledge their sources, viewing such acknowledgment as a weakness.

But atheism is predicated on relative material wellbeing. It's a fairweather friend. — baker

What evidence do you have for that curious claim? I was an atheist when I was broke (years ago) and had to shelter in phone boxes at night to stay dry. My situation made no difference. You are either convinced of something or not convinced of something.

You also made the claim that people lose their religion when life goes bad. So is it the case that you think people's beliefs are held in place by their situation?

you demonstrate an astonishing inability to gauge the value of your beliefs outside of the narrow framework you acquired them in. — Kenosha Kid

What 'narrrow framework' are you referring to? What 'framework' have I been arguing for? You're writing as if I've been pushing evangelical Christianity, which I haven't. I studied the subject through comparative religion, which is as broad a framework as is available to study that subject. I think there is common ground between pre-modern philosophy, and philosophical spirituality, but I am not pushing any form of dogma.

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss. — Kenosha Kid

That's correct, and I stand by that.

The Dalai Lama can get his head around the idea that the teachings of his religion can be erroneous and subject to change. — Kenosha Kid

You don't say. I've mentioned that quote numerous times on this forum. That book came out in 2003. And note the qualification that immediately follows:

However, a clear distinction should be made between what is not found by science and what is found to be nonexistent by science. What science finds to be nonexistent we should all accept as nonexistent, but what science merely does not find is a completely different matter. An example is consciousness itself. Although sentient beings, including humans, have experienced consciousness for centuries, we still do not know what consciousness actually is: its complete nature and how it functions. — Lamarana14

He says that despite the many benefits of science -

The danger...is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure change in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction. — Dalai Lama

Bottom line is, all I said was that there is something good about religion. That triggers hysteria on this forum.

But he says that philosophy seeks that meaning through understanding, not through mere belief, although that is a distinction I guess won't get any traction here. — Wayfarer

It doesn't get much traction in religious/spiritual settings either.

The point about any kind of philosophical hermenuetic is to try and discern what factor, if anything, they are pointing at, so as to disclose a larger truth.

Indeed, a self-respecting philosophizer shouldn't read philosophy books or converse on philosophy discussion forums simply because he's bored or can't sleep.

That depends on what is at stake. If we're simply material aggregates and death is the end, then nothing is at stake. But if there is a higher purpose, and we don't see it, then we've missed the point. And it's a very important point to miss. — Wayfarer

Only on the condition that there is rebirth/reincarnation.
Any type of "higher meaning" stands and falls with rebirth/reincarnation. If there's no rebirth/reincarnation, then nothing is lost if a person doesn't pursue some "higher meaning".

But overall, the erosion of the sense of meaning, the loss of the sense of mankind having a meaningful place in the Cosmos, has been a major theme in modern culture, expressed in countless works of philosophy, drama, art and literature. — Wayfarer

Of course. I think this loss of meaning goes hand and hand with the increase of material wellbeing, or at least with the enormous emphasis on it that is evident in modern times.

I don't think it's necessary to be religious to live a meaningful life, but as a consequence of my own search, I interpret religious ideas as expressions of mankind's search for meaning or of the relationship of the human and the Cosmos. Ultimately the major religious figures achieve a kind of cosmic identity, in more than simply a symbolic sense.

Acknowledging one's sources is an immediate manner of bringing man's relationship with the Cosmos to one's awareness.

By orientating our understanding in the light of theirs, we are able to realise something similar.

I don't know. I've never had a single experience with religious/spiritual people or their texts that I would consider positive or encouraging. Of course, they're all eager to blame me, but I take this eagerness as a sign that they have nothing to offer, or that I'm simply a lesser being who is simply out of their league and would only waste her time trying to understand them.

My primary reasons for skepticism about religion/spirituality are the low quality of interpersonal communication and their caveat emptor attitude. By being that way, they make themselves irrelevant to me, and I can sustain interest in them only if I myself, too, engage in the sort of character assassination against myself that they enact against me.

By being that way, they make themselves irrelevant to me, and I can sustain interest in them only if I myself, too, engage in the sort of character assassination against myself that they enact against me. — baker

I’m curious about what prompted you to start this thread, then. Struggling to see a point.

What evidence do you have for that curious claim? — Tom Storm

It's my own experience, and the experience of many seekers who turn to religion when they are facing hard times. Existential despair can be a powerful motivator.

I was an atheist when I was broke (years ago) and had to shelter in phone boxes at night to stay dry. My situation made no difference. You are either convinced of something or not convinced of something.

It's hard to objectively measure hardship and suffering to begin with. One person's rock bottom might be another's "still manageable". But the point is that they both have a notion of "fallen on hard times", even though they differ in what exactly that means in practical terms (for one, it might be living in a one-room apartment, for another, sheltering in phone boxes).

You also made the claim that people lose their religion when life goes bad.

I only said that some people lose their religion when life goes bad, that I have perceived a trend.

So is it the case that you think people's beliefs are held in place by their situation?

For some people, they seem to be. There are many factors to consider.

I’m curious about what prompted you to start this thread, then. Struggling to see a point. — Wayfarer

An areligious person was bragging about the benefits of their areligious stance, and I wonder if such people can still brag like that once life gets hard.

I don't think it is incompatible to say that life, inherently, has no meaning - but that life, as we experience it, goes way beyond what we can discover in the sciences including atoms, photons, DNA, cells and so on.

We can certainly give life meaning, as we do all the time, without recourse to religion. But I do think the point is well made that for many people, religion does offer a ray of light in otherwise extremely dark circumstances.

Religion can be used to justify the most rotten of actions, as well as the most enlightened actions. It would be unfair today to say that religion is all bad. But to overlook the harm it does, is also a mistake I think.

The point is not so much that we need to consider the good and bad in religion and stand in the middle, it's to recognize that like almost all human topics, there's a lot to pick out in favor of any specific view one may have.

No, I'm saying that something like "the meaning of life is to honour God so that he will let you into Heaven" has no value outside of religions where there's a God and a Heaven and an afterlife. — Kenosha Kid

You don't think there's an objective truth over whether God exists? Last time I checked these religions set forth hypotheses that one will come to know after death or who knows in some cases maybe even before. Islam, Christianity and Judaism assert the existence of a certain type of God and that is a proposition.

"the meaning of life is to honour God so that he will let you into Heaven"

In an interesting way, as a theist, I view your quote there as probably blasphemous - the purpose of life is to connect with God, but not because of the afterlife and but because connection with God is good in itself. Jews virtually never talk about the afterlife and if that's how Christians have pitched it to you I'd be turned off as well.

It doesn't really have anything to do with statues, sorry. — Kenosha Kid

I was glancing over an earlier response and I must have confused artefact with artifact.

What 'narrrow framework' are you referring to? What 'framework' have I been arguing for? You're writing as if I've been pushing evangelical Christianity, which I haven't. — Wayfarer

I didn't say you were arguing for a narrow framework, rather that your posts betray an inability to think outside of one.

That's correct, and I stand by that. — Wayfarer

And it holds true only in that narrow framework.

And note the qualification that immediately follows: — Wayfarer

I think you rather missed the point, which is that even the leader of a religious group can step outside of their own current beliefs for a moment and gauge how they might appear in a broader context.

Bottom line is, all I said was that there is something good about religion. That triggers hysteria on this forum. — Wayfarer

Some specific points you've made have triggered disagreement from a few people. No one, except perhaps yourself, is being remotely hysterical.

Is this just petty rhetoric? The notion there is a religious alignment that makes people "happy" under life and death circumstances is absurd.

I think you rather missed the point, which is that even the leader of a religious group can step outside of their own current beliefs for a moment and gauge how they might appear in a broader context — Kenosha Kid

You don't say. Whereas I, being a fundamentalist, am saying that the Bible is the innerant word of God and the sole path to salvation.

You don't think there's an objective truth over whether God exists? Last time I checked these religions set forth hypotheses that one will come to know after death or who knows in some cases maybe even before. Islam, Christianity and Judaism assert the existence of a certain type of God and that is a proposition. — BitconnectCarlos

Objective truth has nothing to do with it. This concerns belief. If you believe in an afterlife, your idea of life's meaning will be with respect to that. The relative quantity here is the value of that meaning. The belief is a reference frame. If you don't believe in an afterlife, such meanings are valueless and of no loss to the disbeliever. Likewise if you don't believe in a creator, or a simulation, or the Fatherland, etc.

In an interesting way, as a theist, I view your quote there as probably blasphemous - the purpose of life is to connect with God, but not because of the afterlife and but because connection with God is good in itself. Jews virtually never talk about the afterlife and if that's how Christians have pitched it to you I'd be turned off as well. — BitconnectCarlos

It was an example. Different religions have different beliefs and therefore different claims about the meaning of life.

I was glancing over an earlier response and I must have confused artefact with artifact. — BitconnectCarlos

Haha no worries.

Whereas I, being a fundamentalist, am saying that the Bible is the innerant word of God and the sole path to salvation. — Wayfarer

Whereas you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the idea that a meaning derived from a teleological creator isn't worth a damn outside of a creationist framework, that other meanings that are worth a damn in other frameworks are actually the weightier ones in those frameworks. No one's craving a higher purpose from a non-existent entity, it's not that conceptually difficult.

Whereas you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the idea that a meaning derived from a teleological creator... — Kenosha Kid

I never said that, but then, you can't paraphrase what you don't understand.