That's pretty specifically not what I said. You mentioned getting lost in the flow of my last post. I'd make sure you understand it before assuming a meaning to it that has nothing to do with the actual content. I offered three plausible means by which finding meaning and purpose doesn't need to involve religion.
Technically any worldview, or declaration of meaning and purpose, is a philosophy, so I can't say it doesn't include philosophical aspects, but I get the sense that you're using Philosophy with a capital 'P' instead of simply using it to describe each individual's worldview.
Religion is also philosophy*. I'd say atheism is too, but as I mentioned it doesn't really offer a satisfactory answer.
You challenged my post which included both, religion and philosophy to tell me that there are other ways.
You mentioned several times in your post that you're an atheist who makes his own sort of world view and such.
Since I acknowledged philosophy in my original post, I failed to understand what other means offer answers.
You also said ''you do''. Well of course I do. Everyone initially makes their own sense. Philosophy didn't fall out of the sky, it developed.
I have my own philosophy of afterlife and reasons for being here to begin with but I didn't pull them out of thin air - it is heavily influenced by the religious and philosophical teachings of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity.
*There isn't really any meaning to my capitalisation, I just do it for some reason, even though it's not really correct. I refrained from it just now.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Last edited by lil bitchiness on Jan 25th, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I'm reading a book about string theory written by a mathematician, and I just get this image of a great teacher standing between gothic columns, while I'm reading. It could just be my imagination, but string theory reminds me of philosophy.
science, as in the collection of facts and theories that comprise scientific knowledge, is probably not a philosophy.
how such facts and theories are combined into narratives to explain natural phenomenon probably is, or at the very least, is influenced to a major degree by the philosophy one holds regarding the subject being studied.
the methods themselves, how to collect data, how to design experiments, what qualifies as good data or a proper research programme, is entirely philosophy. statistics in science are essentially a form of epistemology, and how to use and apply them to data depends entirely on your philosophical approach to data itself.
In its origins, natural science was classified as a philosophy because of this. It was a new philosophy about how to know things about the world around us. In modern times, philosophy has become (wrongly) associated with "I can just say my opinion", and therefore seems to be opposed to science in popular conception (there is also the sciencism of the Victorian era), but ya, the practice of science is intimately tied to the practice of philosophy.
- By "capital P" I wasn't referring to the actual grammatical capitalization of it. But there's a difference between many concepts when you capitalize them. For example, "man" is an individual, while "Man" can refer to the entire species. It's "Man" in a broad sense, as in "all of mankind." Similarly, if you are talking about philosophy as just a personal set of ideas, it's in the general sense. But if you're referring to philosophy as an accepted canon or societally popular schools of thought, perhaps what would be taught in a textbook, you're referring to philosophy as an institution. Thus, "Philosophy" instead of "philosophy." Feel free to ignore this paragraph, it's not central to our discussion. But it's a cool aspect of language I wish more people made use of. Also opens the door for subtle grammatical humor, which is always awesome.
- Atheism doesn't offer a purpose. If it had any coherent statement of purpose or belief, it wouldn't be atheism. But that's not my point. Many people, and you seem to be among them, think that because atheism itself doesn't have an inherent purpose, that atheists are without inherent purpose. If we're conceding the idea that everyone needs some sense of meaning or purpose, it doesn't matter how you get it. Atheists just come up with their own outside of religious context. Thus, freedom.
- Here was one of my other points from earlier: If you don't believe in the truthfulness of religion, as atheists don't, religion doesn't offer better answers to "why" than anything I might come up with personally. And the reason I think that way is because I realize that all religion is, is people making their own meanings, just like everyone else. All meaning, religious or otherwise, is created individually by humans, because there is no inherent, set meaning to existence. So the question of meaning to an atheist as opposed to religion seems silly, because theists might as well be deriving meaning from the side of a cereal box...it achieves the same end.
- My third point was this: what does meaning and purpose give us? happiness, contentment, fulfillment, etc. So, anything that gives you these things is equal to religious meaning. If my purpose in life is to make teddy bears explode with the power of my dancing, and it provides me with happiness and contentment, that's equivalent to religious meaning...because "meaning" doesn't mean you found "The Answer" to existence. It just means you've found your personal justification for doing what you do.
- We're perfectly capable of living without existential crises if we believe that the physical forces of the universe combined in logical ways to make life, and that no deity or grand purpose drives us. To some religious people, they can't fathom this, but not only is it possible, it's fairly easy. That's where the empowering, personal freedom to create our own purpose comes in. When you're in control of your destiny, not a fictional deity, it opens possibilities and affords a strength to people to rise to the challenge of life.
- I have a suspicion that you won't be entirely sated until I produce some actual purposes, examples of mission statements and such. So here are some: Be happy. Live for others. Live for your legacy. Your children, family, and loved ones. Life is awesome, so enjoy it. Make money and f--- b*tches. All of those are valid purposes (though not always honorable, in the case of the last one), all can provide happiness and contentment. And none require any trace of a deity.
tl;dr version: finding meaning outside of religion is easy. Explaining that fact to the religious is hard.
I would also posit that as a necessity, science (real science) is an extension of philosophy because it seeks to answer, quite innocently, the curious questions spurned by philosophical inquiry.
Where did we come from? What is happening in the future? What is the mind?
These are question that have nice origins for much of what we do in science. I love it.
I understood what you wrote and I already said that my capitalisation has no special purpose - it's just something I do, and since it has no special purpose, therefore it isn't referring to any particular thing and therefore it is technically wrong. I just like doing it.
Please don't patronise me.
Still has nothing to do with what Shaky asked. The only reason you even harbour the idea of atheism is because somewhere in history religion came to be.
Had it not, atheism would simply be irrelevant as religion would be.
Claiming that there is no inherent set meaning to existence is a speculation and not a fact.
The question of meaning isn't even put forward to you or any atheist in this particular case. However, such question has clearly played a huge part in human history and thus religion was born.
Had this have been an irrelevant question, not a single civilization would have had any Gods whatsoever.
.
Purpose of life here and what happens when one dies are the greatest unknowns. Knowing the purpose is knowing the answer to the question humans have asked since the dawn of time. It would ultimately answer the greatest unknown of humanity - what happens when we die.
These questions cannot be answered - only speculated.
Again, you're justifying atheistic views and subtly claiming how they're superior to everything else, as humans can live without religion. Clearly they're not superior, as history shows us, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
At no point did I ask about the purpose. I asked which kind of ideology could offer such answers, other than philosophy and religion, both which have driven man to create a theistic world in search for those answers.
I am more inclined to believe those who say they are seeking the answers rather than those who say they have found them.
Purpose of existence is a complex subject and the greatest unanswered question of human history.
As long as theism existed, atheism existed too. These are not post-Christian revolutionary ideas by any means.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
I had no way of knowing you understood me the first time. Your comment about capitalization led me to believe you didn't, so I explained myself. No slight intended, just a misunderstanding.
I was no longer responding to shakya's original question, I was responding to your comments. Specifically, this one: Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.
...which is from page 1, and is where our discussion started. I said more than religion could answer such questions, you asked what, and it led us here.
Speculation implies guesswork. It's a belief, no doubt, that's there's no inherent meaning. But not speculation. No grand purpose has made itself evident, so it's reasonable to say no single "right" purpose exists. The burden of proof is on those claiming that there is, to show how or why. Until then, "we make our own purpose" is the logical default position.
Agreed, they can't be answered with certainty. But atheism can provide answers as well. What happens when we die? We rot in the ground. Probably not the answer you're looking for, but an answer nonetheless.
First, you're using history and numbers to determine "superior" which aren't valid justification for superiority. Second, be careful what words you try to put in my mouth. Superior again implies "better" which is silly. How could anyone say one is better than the other? It sounds like a grade school fight, a "my dad could beat up your dad" style argument.
What I said was, there's more freedom in atheism to determine your own worldview. I stand by that. It's almost true a priori because there's an infinite number of rationales for creating meaning. In religion, however open-minded and all-encompassing, there's "meanings to life" that don't fit within the religion. Ergo, atheism allows for more freedom to determine purpose. For those who value personal freedom above all else, it's a definite draw of a non-religious worldview. Granted, you don't have to be atheist to leave the dogma of religion, but it's one route.
Fair enough.
Why are we here? Quantum fluctuations in which nonexistence is an unstable state created matter, which in turn led to planet and star formation. On our particular planet, millions of years of evolution allowed for intelligent life to form, and humans came into existence.
What are we here to do? Whatever we decide.
Where do we end up? In the ground, and eventually dispersed throughout the universe in either a Big Crunch or the heat death of the universe billions of years hence.
Why exist or care? The universe is an awesome place, and life is pretty cool and worth living.
Those are answers to the same questions, from a non-theistic worldview. It can be done.
Obviously religion appeals to more people, we can't argue with facts. but your consistent claim has been that atheism can't provide answers...and while it can't, technically (no doctrine to speak of) atheists can quite easily.
Agreed. This doesn't preclude atheists. I don't "know" any more than you about what comes after death or how we came to be. I just have a worldview and opinions on those things based on the universe around us and what we can learn from it.
We'd being lying if we said that atheism isn't in some way connected to scientific discovery. And science, by its very nature, seeking answers and constantly refining them to the best of our knowledge. it deals with likelihoods and probabilities, not certainties. That is its strength, because it allows for change and improvement in our understanding of the universe.
Religion is, by its very nature, dogmatic. One is clearly the "searching for answers" institution, and it isn't religion.
It's not unanswered. It gets answered every day by every sentient being. The answer differs from person to person, is all.
Well, I would disagree that atheism offers more freedom in "the purpose of life". It limits it, actually. As a necessity, it precludes a gigantic set of things for a "purpose of life".
I cannot think of a purpose in life that cannot be fulfilled by a theism or be part of a theism. Anything pogniontly atheistic can also be fulfilled be a theist when it comes to a purpose of life.
Even if your chosen purpose is to be antitheist (a very real position...RIP Hitchens* ), you can still be some sort of theist. In fact, I would think criticizing the world's religions for their faults but still believing in a possibility of a transcendent reality (thank you Mindship) is a very noble endeavor (my subjective opinion, of course).
Now, let me be clear: I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong about this if someone provides a good example. I just cannot think of any.
*Disclaimer: I honestly believe Hitchens was doing God's work. I know, that's silly as hell (pun?) on the surface. But if you believe in the extremely complex AND loving God that I do, you'd consider people like Hitchens to be necessary for the advancement of civilization (as in "civility" which is the groundwork for God's real glory: love).
It removes a few things. But someone framing their purpose through any of the world's religions couldn't, say, establish his purpose as "make money." If a person did that, they're no longer really within that religion in terms of how their beliefs influence their actions and goals.
Even something like "I'm going to work for my children's happiness" is a fine endeavor, but, by necessity, it couldn't end there in a religious paradigm or even be paramount in many religions where God is said to always come first.
When you're an atheist, the acceptable purpose is literally anything. Acceptable purposes are finite in any religion that isn't so vague as to be meaningless.
To paraphrase, "seek riches to do things of righteousness"...
And to extend that further, if a person genuinely thinks what they are doing with that seeking of money, as righteous, then they will be judged (from my religion's perspective) as actually doing that (righteously seeking riches). No matter how deluded one becomes compared to the rest, in my religion, you are judged by the "truest" and most sincere reasons for doing, thinking, and believing. Sure, there are universal truths that apply to all, but even those will have exceptions because it is individualized and subjective to the person themself. Is themself a word? I remember this form middle school...
I disagree, here, as well. God is coming first by serving your family in a loving endeavor. To paraphrase again, if you've served them, you have served Me. It is part of OTHER Christian dogmas that serving your family "deifies" them and turns them into idols, but if you think that it is the best and most righteous thing to do, you're serving God.
It is not, as fact. You're limited. It's not a "small" set either.
Everything you can think of that would be a purpose for an atheist, can also be a purpose of a theist. However, as fact, not all purposes of a theist can be what an atheist seeks.
To both of your examples, I provided two doctrines from Mormonism that contradict that.
If you were to come up with something like, "f*** bitches, get money", I am sure there is a theism out there for that, too.
Edit - Oh, I know, some of the Viking beliefs.
It would be extended to, "f*** bitches, get money through war."
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 26th, 2012 at 05:08 AM
You're kind of hitting a nail on the head here. This is part of my whole point. Purpose is individual, religion is just how many choose to define it. Religion doesn't provide meaning at all, people do.
But not any theism practiced by, well, anyone. Let's not forget that we're talking about world religions and real people, eh? Yes, I'll happily concede that you could invent a religion in which any pursuit is an acceptable one. But we know those don't really exist. There's rules in the Bible, or other holy books, edicts, governing bodies, dogmas and doctrines, etc.
Perhaps a better way to look at it, loathe as I am to go this direction, is that religion often eliminates immoral, self-serving, morally neutral or ambiguous purposes. I hesitate to go that direction because I want to avoid the stereotype that atheism perpetuates evil somehow - it doesn't - but it does remain true that there isn't a deity saying "no" to it. I can live much of my life morally neutral in terms of my affect on others, and not feel guilty about it. I do happen to work toward good in several avenues in my life, but it's a personal choice, not something that I'd have to feel guilt or duty toward if I stopped.
You're not a good example, dudemon. I've touched on this, but your views of theism aren't 99% of your theistic colleagues on the planet. Do you deny that religion prescribes morality, duty, and goals/purposes/meanings to a large percentage of the population? I would hope you don't. If it didn't, it would be utterly impotent as an institution and wouldn't have any societal pull. The fact that it has such sway over people is directly due to the fact that it imprints its doctrines, purposes, meanings, rules, etc. in the minds of followers. Religion is about as powerful a meme complex as exists on the planet.
Because you said this, we agree. Meh. It was probably inevitable that we'd come to a middle ground.
I don't know. I've "heard" of some coffee shop religions being precisely that: God is happy with whatever you do as long as you liked it. I think some flavors of pantheism are like that: just add to the collective "happiness" pool by doing whatever makes you happy.
Basically, there are a shit load of religions out there. Some churches only have 1 follower. It's that silly/diverse. Since we agree on the premise of my point, I don't think we need to discuss it further as I am probably wasting your time (and thread space) at this point.
Re: Why are there more theists, in the world then atheists?
You probably would always end up with a mostly theistic population. I think without scientific knowledge of the world around you, it will always be easier to chalk things up to some supernatural creator(s).
KMC Community Forums
Jan 25th, 2012 12:36 PM
), you can still be some sort of theist. In fact, I would think criticizing the world's religions for their faults but still believing in a possibility of a transcendent reality (thank you Mindship) is a very noble endeavor (my subjective opinion, of course).
