Do atheists find meaning in life from inventing fairy tales?

_{News
March 29, 2018

Atheism, Culture, Naturalism

2}_{Categories
Atheism
Culture
Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Richard Weikart at the Federalist:

The 2018 study in question by David Speed, et al, “What Do You Mean, ‘What Does It All Mean?’ Atheism, Nonreligion, and Life Meaning,” used surveys to try to figure out if atheists find meaning in life or are nihilistic. This survey defined someone as nihilistic if he or she upheld the position: “In my opinion, life does not serve any purpose.”

This study found that atheists and non-religious people are not nihilistic, because they claimed that they did have a purpose in life. This is an interesting finding that seems to refute the oft-repeated charge (levied by religious folks) that atheists are nihilistic.

However, there is a problem with this finding. The survey admitted the meaning that atheists and non-religious people found in their lives is entirely self-invented. According to the survey, they embraced the position: “Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself.”

Thus, when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. More.

Study. (public access)

Didn’t fairy tales used to be Hollywood’s specialty?

See also: Can science survive long in a post-modern world? It’s not clear.

Comments

Allan Keith: In another thread Keith defends the idea that life reduces to chemistry, but here he tell us:
I derive meaning and purpose from my family and my friends.
... and goes on to say:
I decide to do things ...
As if chemistry is capable of making decisions.Origenes_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST}

This is an interesting finding that seems to refute the oft-repeated charge (levied by religious folks) that atheists are nihilistic.
The "charge" is that consequent atheists are nihilistic.Origenes_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PST}

ET,
Mundane, finite and very subjective. Sort of supports the OP.
So, deciding to derive meaning and purpose from family and friends is a fairy tale? Please tell me that you aren’t my friend. :)Allan Keith_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST}

News, totally off topic. But being Canadian, you might want to post something on this. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sci-tech/oldest-human-footprints-in-north-america-discovered-in-canada-study-1.3863896Allan Keith_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PST}

I suspect that most of us believe there is a solid, single reality. Multiversers aside (I'm not one by the way, it sounds a load of codswallop to me). If we start with the assumption of a single reality and noting that over the millennia there have been thousands of different interpretations of that reality, including many theological ones (even a multitude within the Christian family of beliefs) then . . . . How do we account for such wide and differing version of said reality? What accounts for it? Limited and narrow experiences? That would be part of it. But even if you look at people from the same time and social background you can still get widely varying versions of what's going on. Especially these days when there's fewer pressures to conform to certain beliefs. Coercion and social pressures aside can we say that some of the variation is due to individual perception and definition of meaning followed by some social mechanisms? I'm not trying to be offensive but is it possible that even SOME theological interpretations of reality are arrived at and them imposed by a few folks and eventually propagated? Possible? Before you accuse me of trying to argue any of you into a materialistic view of the world then let me reassure you I am merely asking a question that came to mind. If I asked the same question at an atheistic forum I'm pretty sure I can predict exactly what kind of answers I would get. But with you lot . . . I'm not sure. So I really am interested in your views.JVL_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PST}

Allan Keith:
I derive meaning and purpose from my family and my friends.
Mundane, finite and very subjective. Sort of supports the OP.ET_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST}

jdk, I didn't say that you were a materialist. I was just making a statementET_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PST}

The problem with atheists claiming that consciousness is an illusion is that it takes consciousness to determine whether something is real or imaginary in the first place:
“I think the idea of (materialists) saying that consciousness is an illusion doesn’t really work because the very notion of an illusion presupposes consciousness. There are no illusions unless there is a conscious experience or (a conscious person) for whom there is an illusion.” Evan Thompson, Philosopher – author of Waking, Dreaming, Being
Given the fact that consciousness is a prerequisite to determining whether some is even real or illusory in the first place,,
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.
Given the fact that consciousness is a prerequisite to determining whether some is real or illusory in the first place, then it should be all that surprising to learn that the memories of Near Death Experiences are found to be "more real than real"
'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
Moreover, not only do we ourselves become quote unquote 'neuronal illusions' in the Atheist's materialistic worldview, but all our observations of reality would also become illusory too. In the following video and articles, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proven that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would become illusory.
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601
Thus in conclusion, in their denial of the reality of their own immaterial minds, atheists end up claiming that they themselves are deterministic robots with no free will,, who are merely neuronal illusions, and also whose observations of reality are illusory. And my question is this, “Why in blue blazes should anyone trust what robots having neuronal illusions of personhood, and whose perceptions of reality are illusory, and whose cognitive faculties are untrustworthy, have to say about reality? It would be hard to fathom a more unscientific worldview than the Atheist's materialistic worldview has turned out to be. Given the propensity, even dependency, of Atheists to imagine things that are not true, and for them to even 'find comfort' in those false imaginations (as the cited study in the OP mentioned), then perhaps it is not too much to assert that perhaps Atheists have started off on the completely wrong foot to begin with and have falsely 'imagined' God to be vastly different than what He actually is?
Study explores whether atheism is rooted in reason or emotion - Jan. 2015 Excerpt: "A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers." https://uncommondescent.com/just-for-fun/fun-study-explores-whether-atheism-is-rooted-in-reason-or-emotion
Moreover, many studies have now shown that the atheist's imagination will not save them from the devastating effects, both bodily and mentally, that are inherent in their 'objectively real' nihilistic worldview:
“ I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q&f=false “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes - June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the "Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults" study May 16. "For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year," Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/
Thus, although Atheists, via John Lennon, may desperately want to "imagine" a world in which the is no heaven, no hell, and no God, the fact of the matter is that they are living in a self-imposed delusion that is having an all to real and negative impacts on their lives: Verse:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PST}

The cited study in the OP reminds me of this study
Don’t Believe in God? Maybe You’ll Try U.F.O.s By CLAY ROUTLEDGE JULY 21, 2017 Excerpt: People who do not frequently attend church are twice as likely to believe in ghosts as those who are regular churchgoers. The less religious people are, the more likely they are to endorse empirically unsupported ideas about U.F.O.s, intelligent aliens monitoring the lives of humans and related conspiracies about a government cover-up of these phenomena. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/opinion/sunday/dont-believe-in-god-maybe-youll-try-ufos.html
These findings should come as no surprise for anyone who has debated Darwinian atheists. Darwinian atheists are notorious for believing in imaginary 'just so stories' over empirical evidence. That is to say, instead of a person ever receiving any compelling scientific evidence from Darwinists for why a particular facet of life came to be as it is, we are instead treated to an almost endless litany of imaginary 'just so stories'. As Michael Behe observed,, “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish”
EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe - Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
Stephen Jay Gould himself stated that when Darwinists “try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
Here are a few more references to drive the imaginary 'just so story' point home,,,
“Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” Ernst Mayr – Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought – Nov. 2009 – Originally published July 2000 “... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012
And here is a fitting quote from Adam Sedgwick which he wrote in a letter to Charles Darwin himself. Sedwick stated to Darwin, 'You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.' and then went on to tell Darwin that he had issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
SKEPTICS OF DARWINIAN THEORY Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin "...I have read your book (Origin of Species) with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins's locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?" “But I must in the first place observe that Darwin's theory is not inductive,—not based on a series of acknowledged facts pointing to a general conclusion,—not a proposition evolved out of the facts, logically, and of course including them. To use an old figure, I look on the theory as a vast pyramid resting on its apex, and that apex a mathematical point." "But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism;—because it has deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads to physical truth;—because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralized understanding on the part of its advocates." Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - one of the founders of modern geology. - The Spectator, 1860 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - December 22, 2012 Excerpt: For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html
But the descent into unrestrained imagination gets worse for the Darwinian atheist, much worse: In what I consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, in their claim that God does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion, the Atheist ends up claiming that he himself does not really exist as a real person but is merely a quote unquote “neuronal illusion”. Here are a few quotes that make this point clear,,,
“(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER - Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection - 2004 https://www.scribd.com/document/183053947/Experience-Meta-consciousness-and-the-Paradox-of-Introspection The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/ Could Consciousness be an Illusion? June 30, 2014 – Excerpt: “I recently participated in a conference which was unusual for a couple of reasons. Firstly it was held in a sailing boat in the Arctic. Secondly the consensus view of the conference was that consciousness is an illusion. This view, ‘illusionism’, is about as far removed from my own perspective in philosophy of mind as it is possible to get. Me the panpsychist, Martine Nida-Rümelin the substance dualist, and David Chalmers who splits his opinion between these two views, formed the official on board opposition to the hard-core reductionist majority. Somehow we managed to avoid being made to walk the plank.”,, Illusionism is even less plausible than solipsism: the view that my conscious mind is the only thing that exists.,,, http://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2014/06/30/could-consciousness-be-an-illusion/ “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
bornagain77_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PST}

jdk, I think you pose an interesting question, but it's not exactly addressing the OP about meaning, which is more fundamental than how religions develop. Andrewasauber_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PST}

jdk: Where do you think all the hundreds of human religions have come from, if not the creative imagination of human beings?
There are also hundreds of human philosophical concepts of reality — atheistic, theistic and everything in between. Is that all purely "creative imagination" or do you hold that reality exists nonetheless?Origenes_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

Religions are, or can be for those who believe in one, one component of one's belief system. Belief system is a broad term that stretches from major beliefs about big questions about the world to beliefs about our society and our place in it to individual beliefs we have about ourselves. I certainly don't think everything one believes is a religion. And I am interested in your answer to this question: "Where do you think all the hundreds of human religions have come from, if not the creative imagination of human beings?"jdk_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

jdk @ 7: If you are not a materialist, what are you? Please also explain why you reject materialism. Also, why are atheist myths better than religious myths? Atheist myths such as abiogenesis, multiverse theory and objective moral standards have no empirical evidence to support them. They are completely faith-based ideas and beliefs.Truth Will Set You Free_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

jdk, I think you are shifting the goalposts from meaning systems to religions. I don't think they are always the same thing. Unless you mean everything everyone believes is religion. Is that what you mean? Andrewasauber_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PST}

ET @ 4: "The materialistic version of how we came to be relies on more faith than any religion known to humans." True indeed.Truth Will Set You Free_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PST}

ET, I am not a materialist. Asauber: of course it's just an assertion. However, as someone with a background in comparative religion, I think it's backed by quite a bit of empirical evidence. Where do you think all the hundreds of human religions have come from, if not the creative imagination of human beings?jdk_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PST}

I derive meaning and purpose from my family and my friends. I decide to do things that make life easier for them as long as it doesn’t harm others. If it happens to make my life easier as well, all the better. And, amazingly, I do this without requiring the motivation that it will please some god. But, if there is a god, I have no problem defending my actions to him/her/them.Allan Keith_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PST}

All meaning system are invented by humans.
This is bare assertion. Not scientific at all. Andrewasauber_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PST}

jdk- The materialistic version of how we came to be relies on more faith than any religion known to humans- even scientology. It is a joke to anyone with any sense at all. Noah's Ark has a better chance of being true than materialism.ET_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PST}

Here's a more serious, non-snarky, reply. All meaning system are invented by humans. All religions are collective, cultural creations to provide meaning systems to help provide a common structure for members of the culture. The fact that some religions claim to be "true" in some ontological sense is just a feature of their belief system, but that is just one of their invented beliefs, not an actual fact.jdk_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PST}

jdk, In the mind of the atheist, what's the significant difference between believing a religious myth and believing a local illusion of meaning? Andrewasauber_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PST}

As opposed to believing in religious myths???jdk_{March 29, 2018
March
03
Mar
29
29
2018
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply