Questions for people who don't believe in God/ think life is meaningless

[derpyderpins]

I think what people are trying to say here is:

Meaning exists, but only subjectively. There is no "objective" meaning. Subjective meaning arose as a result of evolution. Evolution has no meaning.

Reading through this thread, I agree with @Linda that the language being used is very important.

I suppose I just find it very strange how the concept of "meaning" comes from something with no meaning.
In the same way, how consciousness arose from something that is not conscious.

What if the concept of meaning comes hand-in-hand with consciousness? ie. any being with consciousness will question its "meaning." Or, on the flip side, once you understand the concept of "meaning," only then can you as a being be considered to have consciousness. Before that, the being in question is acting purely on instinct, developing its thoughts more and more, but not quite "conscious" until it thinks 'wait wtf am I doing here?'

 

[wildflowers1996]

Reading through this thread, I agree with @Linda that the language being used is very important.


What if the concept of meaning comes hand-in-hand with consciousness? ie. any being with consciousness will question its "meaning." Or, on the flip side, once you understand the concept of "meaning," only then can you as a being be considered to have consciousness. Before that, the being in question is acting purely on instinct, developing its thoughts more and more, but not quite "conscious" until it thinks 'wait wtf am I doing here?'

I'm not sure it does - I would say my cat is conscious, but not self-conscious; I don't think she questions her meaning.

By "conscious" I mean - she is aware of her surroundings. She is not aware she is aware though.
She has values - e.g. she values eating nice food - but she isn't aware that she has values

 

[LaughingGoat]

1) Sorry I am sleep deprived and expressing myself terribly
But a unicorn would have a body. It would be a "living thing". Meaning is a concept, not a "thing" in the way a unicorn would be.
I think any concept we have a concept of - must exist. A concept exists by definition.
For example - thoughts must exist, or we wouldn't experience thought.
Happiness exists. We must have been happy at some point, to have a concept of it.
Sadness exists. We must have been sad, to have a concept of sadness.
Meaning must exist. We must have felt something to be meaningful, to have a concept of it.

There are concepts of every tons of forms of god imaginable. A general throughline of many is that gods are considered spiritual beings, not physical ones. They therefore have no body yet are claimed to exist. Knowing that all those different gods can't all exist, as they contradict one another by nature, would prove that most if not all are concepts without existence.

Beyond this, it's a semantics issue but you're really referring to concepts as a sweeping definition when abstract concepts and concrete concepts have differences between them. A unicorn is not a "thing" because it doesn't exist so it is only an abstract concept. There are also concrete concepts which are decidedly based in reality. Seeing a tree in front of me and thinking "tree" is a concrete concept. Someone suffering a schizophrenic episode with audio and visual hallucinations would perceive things that are not concrete, they are purely internal. Much of the human experience is trying to label internal concepts as tangible things, but sometimes concepts are simply ideas without basis in reality.

 

[derpyderpins]

I'm not sure it does - I would say my cat is conscious, but not self-conscious; I don't think she questions her meaning.

By "conscious" I mean - she is aware of her surroundings. She is not aware she is aware though.
She has values - e.g. she values eating nice food - but she isn't aware that she has values

again we see the importance of defining our terms. An ant values bringing food to the queen. A simple computer program values whatever I tell it to. There's a progression there.

 

[wildflowers1996]

again we see the importance of defining our terms. An ant values bringing food to the queen. A simple computer program values whatever I tell it to. There's a progression there.

I find it hard to say a computer program "values" anything - it doesn't feel happy when it does what you want it to - it's not sentient
an ant, maybe on a very simple level, probably experiences some feeling of satisfaction when bringing food to the queen

 

[derpyderpins]

I find it hard to say a computer program "values" anything - it doesn't feel happy when it does what you want it to - it's not sentient
an ant, maybe on a very simple level, probably experiences some feeling of satisfaction when bringing food to the queen

Seems like you get my point overall.

 

[Artemisia]

I know it probably doesn't show here at all, because I am writing very unclearly, but I don't think I am completely ignorant when it comes to philosophy. My bachelor's degree is in philosophy, and I got a first.

That, unfortunately, explains everything. Your scientific education certainly was very poor, as it always is with people who focus on humanities, especially philosophy. Philosophy is mostly just playing with ideas and concepts just for the sake of it, it has no solid base. It's like finding 300 ways to describe a house but have absolutely no idea how it's made and, even worse, no idea what's even made of.
It's impossible to seriously philosophy without having a strong background in, at least, the natural sciences. You're focusing on whether the house is really there and what it means, but you have no idea about the principles of building the house. This is exactly what's happening to you when it comes to understanding evolution. And in the end, what matters the most? Being able to build a good, resilient, comfortable house or speculating about the house's purpose or meaning?

 

[jar-baby]

And in the end, what matters the most? Being able to build a good, resilient, comfortable house or speculating about the house's purpose or meaning?

Not to derail the thread but why'd you build a house if you didn't already have a purpose for it in mind? It's like the Socrates quote—The unexamined life is not worth living.

What if the concept of meaning comes hand-in-hand with consciousness?

Yeah—I'd argue more specifically that the question of meaning is a natural accompaniment of higher-order consciousness, especially if we're defining consciousness as the mind's awareness of itself.

 

[wildflowers1996]

There are concepts of every tons of forms of god imaginable. A general throughline of many is that gods are considered spiritual beings, not physical ones. They therefore have no body yet are claimed to exist. Knowing that all those different gods can't all exist, as they contradict one another by nature, would prove that most if not all are concepts without existence.

Beyond this, it's a semantics issue but you're really referring to concepts as a sweeping definition when abstract concepts and concrete concepts have differences between them. A unicorn is not a "thing" because it doesn't exist so it is only an abstract concept. There are also concrete concepts which are decidedly based in reality. Seeing a tree in front of me and thinking "tree" is a concrete concept. Someone suffering a schizophrenic episode with audio and visual hallucinations would perceive things that are not concrete, they are purely internal. Much of the human experience is trying to label internal concepts as tangible things, but sometimes concepts are simply ideas without basis in reality.

Yes I agree, all those gods cannot exist at once as they are contradictory by nature. But even though they wouldn't have bodies, they would be "beings" of some sort - they are not abstract concepts like "meaning" or "happiness"

I wouldn't say a unicorn is an abstract concept in the same way "meaning" or "happiness" is

It makes sense, in theory, for unicorns either to exist, or not exist.

A unicorn might not exist, but it could - as in, it's not illogical for a unicorn to exist. Maybe one day someone might find a way to mix the DNA of rhinos and horses and birds and create a unicorn. I'm not saying that would happen, but that it could in theory.

Whereas for me it makes no sense to say meaning does not exist (even if meaning is only subjective); because it is self-evident.

 

[NEVberten]

a triangle can be "round" if the edges are rounded out.
You can find "meaning" or "purpose" out of anything if ur looking hard enough.
It's ur choice too look for it or to believe in it. If you don't look or believe in it. Then there's that. If other people take it away or makes u lose it, there's that to.
It's hard to believe in something again when it was taken away, it's hard to find something like that again.

I used to believe in god, and I used to hope it would save me, it or it's son himself. The kid me had high hopes.

If God or it's son where real, the things in my life where either on porpoise or they planned it for me. Why would they do that, why make someone weak and wright their story to be as painful for the person. Especially if made weak. Both physically and mentally.

My beliefs in religion in general are the same. It's was all made up to keep people alive and have hope, it was also made to control people so they obey and feel fear of a powerful thing they cannot see. Or even know when it's watching, when it's listening, when it's judging you and your every thought or movement.

 

[wildflowers1996]

That, unfortunately, explains everything. Your scientific education certainly was very poor, as it always is with people who focus on humanities, especially philosophy. Philosophy is mostly just playing with ideas and concepts just for the sake of it, it has no solid base. It's like finding 300 ways to describe a house but have absolutely no idea how it's made and, even worse, no idea what's even made of.
It's impossible to seriously philosophy without having a strong background in, at least, the natural sciences. You're focusing on whether the house is really there and what it means, but you have no idea about the principles of building the house. This is exactly what's happening to you when it comes to understanding evolution. And in the end, what matters the most? Being able to build a good, resilient, comfortable house or speculating about the house's purpose or meaning?

I probably don't have a great scientific knowledge, no

I would say both is important. You need the practical knowledge to achieve your aim.

But the purpose of building the house is to be comfortable, to "feel good".

If you don't know why you want to build the house, what would motivate you to build it in the first place?

I suppose animals build homes for themselves by instinct. But if an animal was able to think "this home isn't very comfy, so I'm not happy. I want to be happy, so I need to build a better home" - by analysing the situation they might end up taking the action to make the home better?

a triangle can be "round" if the edges are rounded out.
You can find "meaning" or "purpose" out of anything if ur looking hard enough.
It's ur choice too look for it or to believe in it. If you don't look or believe in it. Then there's that. If other people take it away or makes u lose it, there's that to.
It's hard to believe in something again when it was taken away, it's hard to find something like that again.

I used to believe in god, and I used to hope it would save me, it or it's son himself. The kid me had high hopes.

If God or it's son where real, the things in my life where either on porpoise or they planned it for me. Why would they do that, why make someone weak and wright their story to be as painful for the person. Especially if made weak. Both physically and mentally.

My beliefs in religion in general are the same. It's was all made up to keep people alive and have hope, it was also made to control people so they obey and feel fear of a powerful thing they cannot see. Or even know when it's watching, when it's listening, when it's judging you and your every thought or movement.

it's no longer a triangle then

you can't say "a triangle is a circle" - that makes no sense
it's like saying "a cat is not a cat"

I'm sorry you've suffered so much, and I know what you mean, religion a lot of the time I'm sure is used to control people :( and to comfort as well, sometimes

a triangle can be "round" if the edges are rounded out.
You can find "meaning" or "purpose" out of anything if ur looking hard enough.
It's ur choice too look for it or to believe in it. If you don't look or believe in it. Then there's that. If other people take it away or makes u lose it, there's that to.
It's hard to believe in something again when it was taken away, it's hard to find something like that again.

I used to believe in god, and I used to hope it would save me, it or it's son himself. The kid me had high hopes.

If God or it's son where real, the things in my life where either on porpoise or they planned it for me. Why would they do that, why make someone weak and wright their story to be as painful for the person. Especially if made weak. Both physically and mentally.

My beliefs in religion in general are the same. It's was all made up to keep people alive and have hope, it was also made to control people so they obey and feel fear of a powerful thing they cannot see. Or even know when it's watching, when it's listening, when it's judging you and your every thought or movement.

it's no longer a triangle then

you can't say "a triangle is a circle" - that makes no sense
it's like saying "a cat is not a cat"

I'm sorry you've suffered so much, and I know what you mean, religion a lot of the time I'm sure is used to control people :( and to comfort as well, sometimes

 

[derpyderpins]

People try to bring order to a chaotic world. Searching for meaning is trying to make something out of the absurd

Sounds like Camus. Is it the world that's absurd, the quest for meaning, or both, in your opinion?

We want to bring order to the absurd, but you of course can't. So, in searching for meaning, we find there is no meaning in the absurd itself. A point I forgot to make on this thread is that talking about God and evolution and "meaning" as what we do with our lives is all external. Once you've come to accept the absurd, you can look inward, and find meaning there. As many have pointed out already, this seems "subjective," or worded as you'll often hear, "life has whatever meaning you give to it." True to an extent, but I think this is still coming up short of a satisfying answer. I think pursuing that deeper answer should be a part of the meaning one gives their life. [Camus would say that ctb to avoid this quest is surrendering to the absurd, and the only way to rebel is to continue grappling with life's meaning - if I remember correctly]. I also think we can compare the meanings others have made their own to help us refine our own choice on our own criteria, and I think such refining - could it be reproduced at a massive scale - would eventually lead to a somewhat uniform answer across learned persons who have accepted the absurd. So, I guess that means I believe there is something resembling an ultimate answer out there, but we're not that close to it yet.

 

[LaughingGoat]

Yes I agree, all those gods cannot exist at once as they are contradictory by nature. But even though they wouldn't have bodies, they would be "beings" of some sort - they are not abstract concepts like "meaning" or "happiness"

I wouldn't say a unicorn is an abstract concept in the same way "meaning" or "happiness" is

It makes sense, in theory, for unicorns either to exist, or not exist.

A unicorn might not exist, but it could - as in, it's not illogical for a unicorn to exist. Maybe one day someone might find a way to mix the DNA of rhinos and horses and birds and create a unicorn. I'm not saying that would happen, but that it could in theory.

Whereas for me it makes no sense to say meaning does not exist (even if meaning is only subjective); because it is self-evident.

I would argue meaning is not self-evident, only people having an idea of it is evident. How would you quantify meaning, what evidence would there be that someone feeling they've fulfilled their idea of meaning is actually fulfilling anything other than their perception. Again I don't mean to get pedantic with semantics, but how would you concretely answer what love is? When you hear a teenager say they love their new bf/gf but they've just met them 2 weeks ago, we as adults usually feel that isn't "real" love. The end truth is there is no "real" love, it's just a concept to explain our emotional state. If someone says love absolutely exists in reality because they've felt it, how would they explain someone who is a horribly abusive father and husband who genuinely believes they love their spouse and children?

 

[Artemisia]

I probably don't have a great scientific knowledge, no

I would say both is important. You need the practical knowledge to achieve your aim.

But the purpose of building the house is to be comfortable, to "feel good".

If you don't know why you want to build the house, what would motivate you to build it in the first place?

I suppose animals build homes for themselves by instinct. But if an animal was able to think "this home isn't very comfy, so I'm not happy. I want to be happy, so I need to build a better home" - by analysing the situation they might end up taking the action to make the home better?

I didn't mean what I said as any kind of insult or anything, it's just something I've come across time and time again. Being a woman of science who also loves arts and writing, I've been involved with both worlds, inclusively organizing writing contests back in college. Despite the judges being language teachers, inevitably the top rated works were always from STEM students. Unfortunately, humanities' students are robbed of a deep understanding of the actual world, how things truly work, and that always shows.

That's the point. Nothing and no one builds/does anything if they don't have a reason for it. In animals the reason is always practical, even if in weird ways. Animals build nests to live in, sing songs to attract mates, move around to find the best hunting ground, etc. They never do anything for no reason. And neither do humans, we just add "because it's pretty and that gives me pleasure", or "because I want to share my experience with as many as possible", and other reasons.

As for animals not realizing they could build a better nest, the thing is, animals take a long, long time to adapt new techniques. They run mostly on instinct and the usually short-time education the progenitor(s) give them. Information and techniques are passed on with little to no innovation. Long ago it was the same with humans, but progressively the time we're considered not mature, the time we spend learning, has been increasing. So has knowledge. Even during as recent as the Renaissance, some people could absorve a lot of knowledge in both sciences, art, theology, etc. Now it's impossible, the amount of knowledge we've acquired is simply too much for a single human being to absorb. And the more knowledge we have the more we can innovate on top of it, that's how the past 30 years or so have allowed for a huge jump in human technology.

 

[wildflowers1996]

I would argue meaning is not self-evident, only people having an idea of it is evident. How would you quantify meaning, what evidence would there be that someone feeling they've fulfilled their idea of meaning is actually fulfilling anything other than their perception. Again I don't mean to get pedantic with semantics, but how would you concretely answer what love is? When you hear a teenager say they love their new bf/gf but they've just met them 2 weeks ago, we as adults usually feel that isn't "real" love. The end truth is there is no "real" love, it's just a concept to explain our emotional state. If someone says love absolutely exists in reality because they've felt it, how would they explain someone who is a horribly abusive father and husband who genuinely believes they love their spouse and children?

I think if someone feels something is meaningful, it is, to them - even if it's not meaningful to others

I would say the teenagers are experiencing "love" but - likely to a less intense degree than a couple married for 50 years might feel

I would like to know why the abusive father/husband thinks he loves his spouse/children - maybe he does, very slightly, but that love is outweighed by anger. Or maybe he has some twisted views like "if I hit my children, they will learn from this"

 

[LaughingGoat]

I think if someone feels something is meaningful, it is, to them - even if it's not meaningful to others

I would say the teenagers are experiencing "love" but - likely to a less intense degree than a couple married for 50 years might feel

I would like to know why the abusive father/husband thinks he loves his spouse/children - maybe he does, very slightly, but that love is outweighed by anger. Or maybe he has some twisted views like "if I hit my children, they will learn from this"

Agreed with what you're saying, meaning it is all completely subjective. I know it's an extreme example, but some people who truly believe in their fanatical religious or neo-nazi ideology truly believe that the most meaningful thing they can do is work to wipe out other religion, races, etc. If that is meaningful, but on the other hand someone who moves to the poorest areas in the world and sacrifices everything they have to support people in need finds that meaningful, then meaning has to be an abstract concept with no actual objective standard. To loop back to your original post in the thread, that would mean there is no inherent meaning or purpose, it's all subjective and without merit outside of our own standards we decide.

 

[sserafim]

Sounds like Camus. Is it the world that's absurd, the quest for meaning, or both, in your opinion?

We want to bring order to the absurd, but you of course can't. So, in searching for meaning, we find there is no meaning in the absurd itself. A point I forgot to make on this thread is that talking about God and evolution and "meaning" as what we do with our lives is all external. Once you've come to accept the absurd, you can look inward, and find meaning there. As many have pointed out already, this seems "subjective," or worded as you'll often hear, "life has whatever meaning you give to it." True to an extent, but I think this is still coming up short of a satisfying answer. I think pursuing that deeper answer should be a part of the meaning one gives their life. [Camus would say that ctb to avoid this quest is surrendering to the absurd, and the only way to rebel is to continue grappling with life's meaning - if I remember correctly]. I also think we can compare the meanings others have made their own to help us refine our own choice on our own criteria, and I think such refining - could it be reproduced at a massive scale - would eventually lead to a somewhat uniform answer across learned persons who have accepted the absurd. So, I guess that means I believe there is something resembling an ultimate answer out there, but we're not that close to it yet.

The world is absurd and people create their own meaning

 

[locked*n*loaded]

I don't understand how anyone could teach me the concept of a "round triangle"
It's the same as saying "a triangle is not a triangle"

When you're a child, you have no "concept" of anything. Anyone could have taught you that the color of the sky is called garlamaschen and that's what you would have learned as the name for the color. No different with describing shapes. If you would have been taught that a triangle is a round shape, that's what you would know it as. Round, pointed, square, obtuse, triangular are all just words of human construct that were assigned as descripters to differently shaped objects for communication purposes. Any words could have been assigned. You have a concept of what round is because that is what you've been taught since young. Like I said, without being shown and taught anything by other people, you'd have no concept of anything at all. You'd have your own formed concept of things, say like shapes, and you'd be able to recognize a banana over and over again, but you wouldn't have man-made constructed words to describe it, even in your brain, without OTHERS having taught you.

 

[tpboy]

From a Darwinian perspective and natural selection there is a purpose to life. It's to create more of our species. Thats it plain and simple. If you think it's anything else, you are putting too much thought into it or being arrogant because you think that the human animal is better than the other animals that live here.

 

[Linda]

you're right - sorry, I am at work so looking at that at the time time, and my thoughts are going 1000 miles an hour right now (OCD causing that I think); I am a mess at the moment and feeling overwhelmed but also talking about this is really important to me considering it probably has an impact on whether or not I choose to end my life
I do think what I am thinking makes sense but I am really struggling to articulate myself, I'm sorry for that

Have a good sleep, and we can tackle these topics again some time you are feeling fresher. They are important topics, and they merit discussion, but we won't get very far with them unless we express ourselves carefully.

 

[black and white]

Life has no meaning. We are animals so we're pushed by instinct to reproduce... That's supposed to be the main purpose... But there is no why it just a natural process of évolution...

As a human being you better give yourself a meaning to your life because actually there is not. So many ordinary people focus on this reproducing/child stuffs ti give meaning to their empty life.
Some will challenge themselves into getting higher position into society etc...

But yeah globally it's meaningless... Or if there is a meaning, it never been revealed, i didn't sée any manuals with Universal purpose...

 

[Snowstorm]

Just throwing in my two cents, I do believe life has meaning, but I do not believe any god exists. No god that is all powerful would let so much cruelty and misery plague our planet like it does.

 

[sserafim]

When you're a child, you have no "concept" of anything. Anyone could have taught you that the color of the sky is called garlamaschen and that's what you would have learned as the name for the color. No different with describing shapes. If you would have been taught that a triangle is a round shape, that's what you would know it as. Round, pointed, square, obtuse, triangular are all just words of human construct that were assigned as descripters to differently shaped objects for communication purposes. Any words could have been assigned. You have a concept of what round is because that is what you've been taught since young. Like I said, without being shown and taught anything by other people, you'd have no concept of anything at all. You'd have your own formed concept of things, say like shapes, and you'd be able to recognize a banana over and over again, but you wouldn't have man-made constructed words to describe it, even in your brain, without OTHERS having taught you.

Tabula rasa

 

[wildflowers1996]

When you're a child, you have no "concept" of anything. Anyone could have taught you that the color of the sky is called garlamaschen and that's what you would have learned as the name for the color. No different with describing shapes. If you would have been taught that a triangle is a round shape, that's what you would know it as. Round, pointed, square, obtuse, triangular are all just words of human construct that were assigned as descripters to differently shaped objects for communication purposes. Any words could have been assigned. You have a concept of what round is because that is what you've been taught since young. Like I said, without being shown and taught anything by other people, you'd have no concept of anything at all. You'd have your own formed concept of things, say like shapes, and you'd be able to recognize a banana over and over again, but you wouldn't have man-made constructed words to describe it, even in your brain, without OTHERS having taught you.

isn't this just about words?

yes, we could give a circle the name "triangle" and triangle the name "circle"

what I'm saying is - a three pointed shape cannot have no points

you can't say "a triangle is not a triangle"

 

[locked*n*loaded]

isn't this just about words?

yes, we could give a circle the name "triangle" and triangle the name "circle"

what I'm saying is - a three pointed shape cannot have no points

you can't say "a triangle is not a triangle"

No. Words are how the concepts get formed in your mind. The point is you're going to understand something based on however you're taught. Back to that island scenario.........again, if you were a baby, and placed on an island all alone, and *somehow* managed to survive, say until your teens, do you actually believe that you'd have the "concept" of God in your mind? Of course you wouldn't because that concept was instilled into you by man. Or, do you believe that God somehow downloads belief in Him to you?

 

[wildflowers1996]

I didn't mean what I said as any kind of insult or anything, it's just something I've come across time and time again. Being a woman of science who also loves arts and writing, I've been involved with both worlds, inclusively organizing writing contests back in college. Despite the judges being language teachers, inevitably the top rated works were always from STEM students. Unfortunately, humanities' students are robbed of a deep understanding of the actual world, how things truly work, and that always shows.

That's the point. Nothing and no one builds/does anything if they don't have a reason for it. In animals the reason is always practical, even if in weird ways. Animals build nests to live in, sing songs to attract mates, move around to find the best hunting ground, etc. They never do anything for no reason. And neither do humans, we just add "because it's pretty and that gives me pleasure", or "because I want to share my experience with as many as possible", and other reasons.

As for animals not realizing they could build a better nest, the thing is, animals take a long, long time to adapt new techniques. They run mostly on instinct and the usually short-time education the progenitor(s) give them. Information and techniques are passed on with little to no innovation. Long ago it was the same with humans, but progressively the time we're considered not mature, the time we spend learning, has been increasing. So has knowledge. Even during as recent as the Renaissance, some people could absorve a lot of knowledge in both sciences, art, theology, etc. Now it's impossible, the amount of knowledge we've acquired is simply too much for a single human being to absorb. And the more knowledge we have the more we can innovate on top of it, that's how the past 30 years or so have allowed for a huge jump in human technology.tha

that's ok I know it wasn't meant as an insult, just an observation :)

I guess what I was trying to say is

"And in the end, what matters the most? Being able to build a good, resilient, comfortable house or speculating about the house's purpose or meaning?"

- this is a philosophical question in itself

paradoxically, you would need philosophy to decide philosophy is not important and studying science is more important

 

[jbear824]

I don't think life has any inherent or intrinsic meaning. The fact that humans are what they are today, all comes down to luck and random convergence.

We are little more than bits of nucleic acid desperately clinging to life.

Meaning is what you make of it. Life has meaning only so far what people assign to it. But objectively? No. We are here because some amino acid fell into a primordial soup and we were lucky enough to get to this point.