“Meaning” vs. “MEANING”

_{Barry Arrington

November 9, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Thank you to Aleta for taking up the opposing view of the nature of meaning in my Gotta Serve Somebody post. I started to write a response to his comment 34 and quickly realized that any response would be OP-sized and decided to start a new OP.

Some Definitions

“disagreement is not an easy thing to reach. Rather, we move into confusion.” John Courtney Murray

Part of the problem in the debate between Aleta and myself is that we use the word “meaning” in at least three different senses, (1) linguistic intention, (2) ultimate purpose, and (3) culturally-adapted belief system.

In an effort to see if we can actually reach disagreement as opposed to confusion, I propose to dispense with the word “meaning” altogether and to use in its stead the following:

Linguistic intention. Instead of “this word has the following meaning” I will use “this word has the following definition.”

Ultimate purpose. Instead of “the theist believes there is an ultimate meaning in the universe and the atheist denies that there is,” I will say “the theist believes there is Ultimate Purpose/Significance in the universe and the atheist denies that there is.”

Culturally adapted belief system. Aleta says that human belief and meaning systems are human inventions that are inculcated into members of a culture. Fair enough. I will use the phrase “Culturally Adopted Belief System” to refer to this type of “meaning.”

Barry’s Argument

The materialist believes there is no Ultimate Purpose/Significance. As Richard Dawkins says in the following famous quotation:

[In the universe there] is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

In my previous post I argued that the idea that our life is completely meaningless, that the universe is indifferent to our existence, that literally nothing we say, think or do has any ultimate significance, is unbearable. No one is able to stare into the abyss without flinching. I noted that even those that insist there is no Ultimate Purpose/Significance feel compelled to seek a kind of meaning as a substitute for Ultimate Purpose/Significance. Dawkins again:

The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.

In the first quote Dawkins stares into the abyss, and in the second he flinches away. Why? Because an intense longing for Ultimate Purpose/Significance is at the bottom of every human heart. Everyone, from fundamentalist Bible thumpers to militant atheists, searches for a greater context in which to situate their lives. For theists the explanation for this longing is easy:

You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.

Confessions, Augustine of Hippo

The honest materialist does not deny the longing. At that same time he cannot admit that when we long for Ultimate Purpose/Significance we are longing for something that actually exists. So how does the materialist explain a near universal longing for something that does not exist? He explains it like he explains a lot of things (consciousness, the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, libertarian free will) — the near universal human impulse to place our lives within the context of some Ultimate Purpose/Significance is an illusion foisted on us by our genes, which in turn resulted from some evolutionary adaptation.

Aleta’s Argument

Aleta disagrees that the universe’s indifference is unbearable and that no one is able to stare into the abyss without flinching. He does not agree that even those who insist there is no Ultimate Purpose/Significance feel compelled to seek Ultimate Purpose/Significance. He writes:

I do believe that humans do engage, and have engaged in “make believe” about some things that we really don’t know much, if anything about: I think most metaphysical religious beliefs fall into this category. But we have all sorts of other beliefs about how to treat our fellow man (or at least those that we include in our understanding of our community/society), about how to contribute to the well being of our society, how to spend our time in what various human activities are possible, and so on. Many of these beliefs are cultural: the fact that many people are brought up in them as children and that most of society supports them gives those beliefs a sense of being bigger than the individual. Human belief and meaning systems are human inventions. They are based on a mixture of empirical knowledge (confirmed beliefs) and agreements within the culture to see the world a certain way (affirmed beliefs). Calling then “make believe” devalues both them and the human beings for whom they are important.

Barry’s Response

Just like Dawkins Aleta wants to have it both ways. Consider again Dawkins’ first comment, which I will call the “Materialist Prime Directive.”

[In the universe there] is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Now consider again Dawkins’ second statement:

The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.

Dawkin’s second statement is radically irreconcilable with the Materialist Prime Directive, because if the Materialist Prime Directive is true, the words “meaningful,” “full,” and “wonderful” in the second statement are empty. Similarly, Aleta affirms the Materialist Prime Directive.* Then he says that “we have all sorts of other beliefs about how to treat our fellow man . . .” But if the Materialist Prime Directive is true, those beliefs about how to treat our fellow man are empty, mere evolutionary adaptations foisted upon us by our genes. Aleta chides me for calling them “make believe,” but they are indeed make believe in a very real sense of that phrase. If the Materialist Prime Directive is true, those beliefs are empty and arbitrary impulses that evolution “makes” us “believe.”

I argue that the human longing for “meaning” (i.e., Ultimate Purpose/Significance) is a very real phenomenon, and that longing is directed at something real. Aleta agrees there is a longing, but he dismisses that longing as a mere cultural adaptation. Here’s the problem with that. Once one realizes that “meaning” in Aleta’s sense of the word is empty and arbitrary, a mere evolutionary adaptation foisted upon us by our genes, the game is up. Because it is a truism that a meaning (cultural adaptation) that is meaningless (arbitrary/random) can have no meaning (ultimate significance).

___________

*Though he quibbles with whether he is actually a materialist. I think he prefers to consider himself an agnostic who accepts materialism provisionally. He can explain what he believes if I a wrong.

Comments

Aleta
Keith S addressed this in #5 when he quoted some definitions from Google, such as “having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose, making our lives rich, deep, serious, in earnest, significant, …”
The first part of that definition is correct (Having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose) I am going to challenge the second part
“making our lives rich and meaningful” synonyms: sincere, deep, serious, in earnest, significant, important “a meaningful relationship” I’m speaking of that kind of meaning in my comment above:
Once again, KeithS is trying to pull a fast one. The definition of "meaningful," which is subjective, cannot be substituted for the word "meaning," which has an objective component. You will not find synonyms like sincere, rich, or in earnest attached to the word "meaning." KeithS must have understood this, so he searched for a subjectivized form of meaning (meaningful) and tried to pass it off as part of the definition of "meaning." How about Darwinist Debating Tactic #19--smuggling the definition of one word into part of the definition of another word.StephenB_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

"I think the phrase ultimate meaning or ultimate purpose adequately describes the view of the theist: that in the mind of God, and as an aspect of the intentions of his actions, the universe has a purpose; and more importantly, humans have a purpose in his eyes, and their lives derive an ultimate meaning from their relationship with him as part, a very special part, of his creation. The overriding meaning and purpose of one’s life comes from and relates to a source outside of oneself – one immensely more powerful and knowledgable than any human could ever be – God. Please correct me if this is not an adequate, although brief, description of ultimate meaning. I think this is a fairly standard understanding most people would have of the phrase 'ultimate meaning.'" - Aleta Be careful in summarising the Christian view here. In so doing you have left out the most important part. " The overriding meaning and purpose of one’s life comes from and relates to a source outside of oneself " The more complete view is that purpose of one's life derives from the character of God, not simply from "outside the self." We don't meditate on bicycles and tea cups, rather, on the selfless, other-directed character of God exemplified in Christ. Acknowledging that Christ's life is superior to our own, we learn to be selfless, other-directed as he is. In so doing, our lives have meaning and purpose outside the need to fulfill our own desires. To miss this is to miss the crucial point in the incarnation, crucufixion and resurrection. So ultimate meaning isn't a feel-good esoteric religious experience of a powerful entity outside the self, rather, it is taking into oneself the character of God, which is manifest in us as what the apostle calls the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23). None of these characteristics are too controversial. In fact, Paul states, "against these things there is no law." In "choosing" these characteristics as part of your ethic, your meaning, you are not so much as choosing them, as allowing them to be manifest in you. We don't come upon such an ethic naturally by choice. In fact, it would be safe to say that while no person could rationally condemn such an ethic, world cultures don't exactly encourage it explicitly. Human laws tend to scratch the surface of such an ethic without overtly demanding it. As is said, you can't legislate morality. But under the surface of our laws is this ethic. We don't choose it, it finds its way to us through human law. So human law is but a shadow of what theists view as the ultimate meaning in life. Jews utter the Shema Yisrael, Christians talk of the golden rule. other traditions have similar pronouncements. Even atheists claim to adhere to a similar ethic. I fail to see how this is in any way a chosen meaning, yet it approaches what all of us mean when we talk about loving those close to us, and to our fellow humans. It seems to me that it is woven into the fabric of our laws however marginally. So is meaning really as subjective as materialists suppose? When we talk of meaning, we talk of entities that lurk in the shadows of our collective concious, and they seem to be the same spirits when we expose them to the light. That the Christian manifestation is more explicit shouldn't be at all surprising. It is the Christian ethic, which after all, provided us with the basis for the notion of freedom, dignity and human rights. It wasn't a choice; it was forced upon us by scripture. We can choose another path, certainly, and we often do, but such a path is objectively more perilous as history demonstrates time and again. But the materialist claims that there is no "ultimate" meaning, while at the same time affirming the basic meanings that all other rational humans adhere to, while declaring that such meaning has not been hoisted upon them by rational discourse, like it has all the rest; that he/she is free to choose this meaning for him/herself quite apart from an objective mandate. Their actions speak much louder than their words on the matter, and they contradict. When they love another, they are doing an objective "ought." That it has meaning to them is not by choice but by rational mandate as part of their human makeup.CannuckianYankee_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Lots to try to unpack here, but I'll give it a try. 1. First, I don't think I can accept Barry's three definitions of meaning, especially his attempt to define meaning as I am using it. I understand, of course the first use of meaning in terms of what a word means, and I don't think we have to worry about getting confused about that. I think the phrase ultimate meaning or ultimate purpose adequately describes the view of the theist: that in the mind of God, and as an aspect of the intentions of his actions, the universe has a purpose; and more importantly, humans have a purpose in his eyes, and their lives derive an ultimate meaning from their relationship with him as part, a very special part, of his creation. The overriding meaning and purpose of one's life comes from and relates to a source outside of oneself - one immensely more powerful and knowledgable than any human could ever be - God. Please correct me if this is not an adequate, although brief, description of ultimate meaning. I think this is a fairly standard understanding most people would have of the phrase "ultimate meaning." However the meaning of meaning that Barry wants to ascribe to me is wrong. Barry says that I say [these are Barry's words] that "human belief and meaning systems are human inventions that are inculcated into members of a culture." This is true fact (for a short sentence), but is a fact about meaning, not a definition of meanings. Keith S addressed this in #5 when he quoted some definitions from Google, such as "having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose, making our lives rich, deep, serious, in earnest, significant, ..." Meaning in this sense refers to the biggest questions and deepest feelings we have about our lives and the world around us: how are we to treat our fellow man, how can we contribute to the well being of our society, how do we spend our time in what various human activities in order to make the most of our capabilities, how can we best actualize our potential for positive satisfying human traits such as love and affection, awe, peace, etc., and minimize fear, anger, depression, etc. What overriding "big picture" do we have about who human beings are and how are we to live in this brief period of time we are alive? Our answers to those questions constitute the things than "give our life meaning." These questions and feelings are really no different than the ones asked by a theist. There are not two different meanings of meaning, one for Barry and one for Aleta: we both have the same human needs, the same human resources to draw on, and basically the same questions. The source of disagreement is where one gets those answers, and most specifically, whether there is an outside source that provides an ultimate purpose or whether those are derived from the human experience, drawing on our nature as an organism, the concentric circles of culture we all inhabit (family, community, nation, etc.), and our own integration of all our personal experience in order to exist as a meaningful whole in our own eyes. 2. Barry then quotes Dawkins: "[In the universe there] is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", and you decide to call this the “Materialist Prime Directive.” Now I am not Dawkins, nor particularly a Dawkins fan, so I certainly don't want to be held responsible for what Dawkins said. So I would hope we could stick to what I have said, and not Dawkins: I wrote, "the universe as a whole has no purpose nor does it add an external meaning to our life", which is different in important ways than what Dawkins says. You further load the discussion with your own preconceptions by calling this the “Materialist Prime Directive.” I don't consider my belief that the universe does not give me purpose or meaning a "prime directive" of any kind. Purpose and meaning in my life are local affairs, and there is no reason why the universe as a whole should be involved. Just because your belief that God gives meaning and purpose to human beings is a prime directive to you doesn't mean that the negation - that the universe doesn't supply meaning and purpose, is a prime directive for me. To define my beliefs (which are mine, not yours), as if they were obligated to being seen as the opposite of ours, in all their implications, is wrong. The fact that there is no ultimate meaning coming from the universe is a non-event in my life - I have no reason to believe that the universe has any such impact on me, or should have. So I reject the characterization of my belief as a "prime directive". I am directed by other understandings, but not that one. Barry then wrote, "No one is able to stare into the abyss without flinching. I noted that even those that insist there is no Ultimate Purpose/Significance feel compelled to seek a kind of meaning as a substitute for Ultimate Purpose/Significance." I disagree with much of what you say here for similar reasons as above, and since what you say here in effect is meant to apply to me, I'll tell you where I think you're wrong. Your sentence "No one is able to stare into the abyss without flinching" contains all your own preconceptions of how you think I see the world, but your are wrong. The universe is not an abyss, I'm not staring into it, and when I do contemplate its non-purposeful nature, there is nothing to flinch from, for as explained above I have no reason to expect the universe to supply purpose: I get my meaning and purpose from much more local sources. Your whole metaphor conjures up images that relate to your worldview because of the feelings you would have if you lost your belief in God, but the metaphor soes not apply to me. 3. You write, "an intense longing for Ultimate Purpose/Significance is at the bottom of every human heart. Everyone, from fundamentalist Bible thumpers to militant atheists, searches for a greater context in which to situate their lives. The honest materialist does not deny the longing." Again, more projection from your own worldview, I think. It is a fact of human psychology that people strive to organize their understanding of their lives into a meaningful whole. Given how dependent we are on both learning and abstract thinking, this is a necessity. And for most people, to varying degrees, some sense of wanting to understand the "big picture" issues mentioned above is part of that desire. However, to say that "Ultimate Purpose/Significance is at the bottom of every human heart" is to, again, impose conceptions from your own worldview on all others. I am, for the sake of this discussion, "an honest materialist" and I don't have an intense longing for an ultimate purpose. I don't think such a thing exists, and it doesn't seem reasonable to even think that it might. 4. In the part Barry titled Aleta's Argument, Barry is primarily discussing Dawkins, and I've already said I'm not interested in discussing any one's views but mine, and that I'm not a fan of some of the things Dawkins has to had to say about this. It's getting late, so I'll jump to Barry's last paragraph:
I argue that the human longing for “meaning” (i.e., Ultimate Purpose/Significance) is a very real phenomenon, and that longing is directed at something real. Aleta agrees there is a longing, but he dismisses that longing as a mere cultural adaptation. Here’s the problem with that. Once one realizes that “meaning” in Aleta’s sense of the word is empty and arbitrary, a mere evolutionary adaptation foisted upon us by our genes, the game is up. Because it is a truism that a meaning (cultural adaptation) that is meaningless (arbitrary/random) can have no meaning (ultimate significance).
This whole paragraph is full of misconceptions about what I believe. "Once one realizes that “meaning” in Aleta’s sense of the word is empty and arbitrary", says Barry I never said that. Meaning in the sense I mean it is neither empty nor arbitrary - to each person their sense of meaning is important, complex, connected to strong emotions, and a product of the person's attempt to integrate their experience into a useful and meaningful whole. I can't imagine how this could be called empty or arbitrary. Barry says, "... a mere evolutionary adaptation foisted upon us by our genes." I never said that our beliefs were "mere", nor that they were "foisted upon us by our genes." This is more of Barry characterizing statements and beliefs that he thinks materialists must have because he defines his notion of them in opposition to his own wordview. Barry says my beliefs, as a product of a combination of my human nature, my specific genetic nature, my society, my culture, my life experience, and my cognitive processing are "meaningless (arbitrary/random)." I can't begin to understand what he means here. Of course there a elements or randomness in my life, just as they are in everybody's: if I would have been shipped off to Tibet as a baby my understanding of the world would be very different, but my sense of it being my understanding would be just as strong. But to me, my big picture understandings are the product of some of the most focussed work I've done in my life - there is nothing arbitrary or random about them. And Barry finishes with concluding that my notion of meaning "has no meaning (ultimate significance)." But here at the end he is treating his notion of an ultimate meaning as the standard by which all meaning should be judged, and since I don't believe in ultimate meaning he declares that my meanings are meaningless. But that is just stacking the deck - loading the conclusion with his preconceptions. I don't believe ultimate meaning exists, and I don't expect it to exist. I have deep respect for the ways that human beings make meaning for themselves based on our experiences here in this life, but I don't think the universe, or any God of the universe, supply those meanings for us. This has gotten long, and is wordy and redundant in places, but it's my bedtime! One last response to Barry's footnote;. He writes, "Though he quibbles with whether he is actually a materialist. I think he prefers to consider himself an agnostic who accepts materialism provisionally. He can explain what he believes if I a wrong." Fairly accurate. I'll clarify by saying that I believe all we can really know is the material universe, because even if there is a non-material aspect to the universe (which there might be), all we can know is its effects when it "touches" the material world. I see a distinction between the world of which we can have empirical knowledge and the world behind that world, so to speak, about which we can only speculate. Also, ... this could go on and on. Enough for now.Aleta_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

Barry, Phew. StephenB came along just in time, eh? You were probably beginning to worry that you might have to defend your own statement. Well, you're still on the hook:
Barry, You claimed that my position was contradictory:
And why is it so hard for you to grasp that you want to have it both ways, just like Dawkins and Aleta.
Do you have the courage of your convictions, or are you going to run away from yet another challenge? I wrote:
I don’t want to “have it both ways”. There is no contradiction in my position.
If you think otherwise, then identify the contradiction. Quote the statements of mine that you believe are contradictory, and explain why you think so. The onlookers are watching. Can you back up your statement, or will you fold yet again?
It's your claim. Can you back it up? Quote the statements of mine that you believe are contradictory, and explain why you think so.keith s_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

ESCAPE FROM REASON "The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it." - RD "Meaning is inherently subjective. An experience can be meaningful to one person while another sees it as utterly banal. There is no contradiction there. I am content that my life has meaning to me and to the people I love. I don’t need a Big Meaner in the Sky to regard my life as meaningful." - KS "I have no problem with the fact that there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to life. I much prefer being responsible for bringing purpose and meaning to my own life. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is just lazy and defeatist. If you prefer to live like this, that is your choice. I chose otherwise." - CS "For your information I find it quite bearable to believe “that our life is completely meaningless, that the universe is indifferent to our existence, that literally nothing we say, think or do has any ultimate significance." - MF The above are not surprisingly, similar statements on meaning: that it is subjective, selective, and that we should not make any attempt to pin it down to a particular definition, thus: "Barry, In your OP, you are attempting to stack the deck in your favor by limiting “meaning” to the following three definitions: 1. Linguistic intention. 2. Ultimate purpose. 3. Culturally adapted belief system. Meaningful things aren’t limited to those three categories. Here’s the second definition that Google returns for 'meaningful”'" - KS As far as the first statement from Dawkins, I think JDH at #1 has effectively dismantled it: "My INTELLECTUAL, RATIONAL side realizes there is no meaning. But my EMOTIONAL side chooses to live within the confines of a made up purpose and meaning of my choosing.......... What is ironic is that this the attributions are directly backwards." But what of "meaning is inherently subjective?" It is easy to see why materialists view meaning as subjective, given their protests in pinning it down to specific defining criteria, but is it truly rational to believe that all meaning is subjective? is not such a position self-defeating? It would be interesting to see an in-depth analysis of this question from perhaps WJM, Kairosfocus, Barry or VJT. I personally view the position as an excuse to avoid solid stances on ethical issues, to "have it both ways." They find it quite bearable to accept this position because it comes with a temporary payoff: the ability to ignore concsience in situations of their choosing. To make up one's own meaning is to make up one's own rules. JDH nailed this one. They approach the scientific questions with their stated emotional desire to find their own "meaning." As such, we can never really have a meaningful discussion with such people, as in their view they are free to move the goal posts, to make up the rules as they go along, and to demand that we follow suit. Richard Dawkins has never capitulated on any one of his positions precisely because of his emotional commitments, not because of any intellectual ones, which explains his highly passionate and emotional atheist rhetoric when dealing with his opponents. We can expect the same pattern with all the others who take the same position. "Meaning is inherently subjective. An experience can be meaningful to one person while another sees it as utterly banal. There is no contradiction there." No, there's no contradiction there, but there is a reduntancy that proves nothing. That a person views an experience as meaningless does not render it so. For example, I have experienced your quote. You meant somethimg by it. My failure to see your point does not force it into the realm of the meaningless. You still meant something. Meaning is therefore not only in the eyes of the beholder, but in the intent of the purveyor. it has little to do with whether I accept its meaning or not. If you read this, you are receiving my own attempt at producing meaning, rather than projecting meaning upon words from me that are bereft of purpose or meaning until you happen upon them. You could never learn from another if you are truly free to create your own meaning. This is why I believe your position to be self-defeating.CannuckianYankee_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

KS @ 15. StephenB already ably (as usual) points out the holes in your argument. No need to for redundant smackdowns.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

KeithS
But it’s not incoherent to say “life has no ultimate meaning or significance but it still has meaning and significance to me.”
Yes it is. If your were meant for nothing then it is a contradiction to say that you are going to be meant for something. You cannot logically be what you are not.
But it’s not incoherent to say “life has no ultimate meaning or significance but it still has meaning and significance to me.”
Yes, it is. To say life is meant for nothing conflicts with the statement, life means something to me.
Meaning is inherently subjective.
You perception of meaning is subjective but the fact of meaningfulness and purposefulness is objective.
An experience can be meaningful to one person while another sees it as utterly banal. There is no contradiction there.
It can seem meaningful to one person and seem banal to another person, but it cannot be both meaningful and meaningless. To be is not to seem. Indeed, the meaning you try to create can easily be in conflict with what you were meant to be if, in fact, you were created for a purpose. So it is with any created thing. A can opener was meant to open cans. If it were conscious and had free will, it might decide that it would be more subjectively meaningful to be a ball point pen, In keeping with that point, it might insist that it had created its own meaning, but the objective fact that it was meant to be a can opener and nothing else is inescapable.StephenB_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

This all sounds like a lot of equivocation on the meaning of meaning. Advocates of the religious view that our lives have "meaning" seem to be arguing that it exists only insofar as our lives can be shown to serve a purpose in the mind of a Creator. What that purpose might be is most likely beyond our power to discover unless the Creator chooses to divulge it to us and He, She or It - if such exist - has been remarkably tight-lipped about the whole thing since the first century. The only documentary evidence we have the might have a bearing on the issue - the Bible - is inconsistent, contradictory and inconclusive. Believers are left to struggle with an inscrutable purpose which they hope and believe will turn out to be to their advantage in the long term. Atheistic materialists - or materialistic atheists - as has been pointed out before, have very little to offer as an alternative. Atheism is the absence of belief not an alternative belief. Atheism is not trying to win converts from other faiths by offering a better package of benefits in this life and rewards in the afterlife. It can't. It has nothing to offer potential adherents and, hence, should not be seen as a threat to the worlds religions. Except perhaps for a couple of questions. To whit, if the meaning of life resides in a purpose formed in the mind of an intelligent agent, what purposes count - or not - and why? Why shouldn't my purpose or your purpose be just as 'meaning-izing' as anyone else's?Seversky_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Keith,
Keith: If I find my life to be meaningful (and I do), then it has meaning.
What is the meaning of your life?Box_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Barry, You claimed that my position was contradictory:
And why is it so hard for you to grasp that you want to have it both ways, just like Dawkins and Aleta.
Do you have the courage of your convictions, or are you going to run away from yet another challenge? I wrote:
I don’t want to “have it both ways”. There is no contradiction in my position. If you think otherwise, then identify the contradiction. Quote the statements of mine that you believe are contradictory, and explain why you think so.
The onlookers are watching. Can you back up your statement, or will you fold yet again?keith s_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Aleta, Mark and others such as Hitchens have explained why a person can have a fulfilled life with meaning and purpose without believing in God. Barry and other theists such as WL Craig have suggested that real purpose and meaning can be had only if it comes from an outside source. I think its worth considering what these 2 view of meaning and purpose entail. Its understandable that people want to be part of something larger. There is a certain kind of bliss felt by soldiers in a large battle or dancers in a big intricately choreographed performance when you realize you're a cog in a much larger machine. I think a similar thing can happen when one finds oneself in the midst of an historical event- no matter how insignificant ones part is. However valid these feelings are they shouldn't be confused with having a purpose for ones own life. I would say that meaning and purpose, by definition, has to come from within. Anything else, any purpose imposed from outside is no different than the purpose the Master has for the slave. It doesn't matter if this purpose comes from a Master, a boss, a president or the creator of the universe. I can think of an immediate objection some might make to my characterization but I might as well wait to see if anyone comments.RodW_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

KS @ 11. Read the OP again. You do not seem to have understood it, because you ask me to explain something I have already explained in detail. When you demonstrate you understand the OP, perhaps I will engage with you.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

As to:
Meaning is inherently subjective.,,, I know that the Big Meaner is important to you, but I don’t need a Big Meaner in order to find meaning in my life. If I find my life to be meaningful (and I do), then it has meaning. Not ultimate meaning, but meaning nonetheless.
Exactly who is this I that keith s is referring to that is so important to have meaning for in his life?
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession 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.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/
i.e. There is no person named keith s in keith s's worldview, there is just a neuronal illusion of an "I" in keith s's worldview who wishes to have an illusion of meaning. In effect keith s is an illusion wishing to have and illusion! :) As to this statement of the neuronal illusion of keith s's "I",,,
Meaning is inherently subjective.,,,
Contrary to what keith s's neuronal illusion of self, "I", may wish to be true, the fact of the matter is that subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, is not reducible to a material basis. In fact, subjective experience, i.e. consciousness, is axiomatic to quantum mechanics, and takes primary consideration over what keith s presupposes to be an objective material reality that can exist apart from his consciousness of it.
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' “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 originator 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.)
Dividing the world into subjective and objective is known as the 'measurement problem' in quantum mechanics.
On The Comparison Of Quantum and Relativity Theories - Sachs - 1986 Excerpt: quantum theory entails and irreducible subjective element in its conceptual basis. In contrast, the theory of relativity when fully exploited, is based on a totally objective view. http://books.google.com/books?id=8qaYGFuXvMkC&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false How observation (consciousness) is inextricably bound to measurement in quantum mechanics: Quote: "We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/neumann/ The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
No where is the gravity of the measurement problem, i.e. that material reality does not exist until we look at it, more clearly illustrate than "Leggett's inequality"
Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU
If you have trouble accepting the implications of the preceding video, don’t feel alone, Nobel prize winner Anthony Leggett, who developed Leggett’s inequality to try to prove that an objective material reality exists when we are not looking at it, still does not believe the results of the experiment that he himself was integral in devising, even though the inequality was violated by a stunning 80 orders of magnitude. He seems to have done this simply because the results contradicted the ‘realism’ he believes in (realism is the notion that an objective material reality exists apart from our conscious observation of it).
Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/
And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett's inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision:
Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf
The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:
Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449
Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what Leggett's inequality 'means': Leggett's inequality Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Verified, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
Also see Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers on "the Hard Problem' of consciousness
bornagain77_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Barry,
And why is it so hard for you to grasp that you want to have it both ways, just like Dawkins and Aleta.
I don't want to "have it both ways". There is no contradiction in my position. If you think otherwise, then identify the contradiction. Quote the statements of mine that you believe are contradictory, and explain why you think so.keith s_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

KS
Why is that so hard for you and Barry to grasp?
And why is it so hard for you to grasp that you want to have it both ways, just like Dawkins and Aleta.Barry Arrington_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Barry refers to Aleta, Mark and the people who agree with them (such as myself) as "materialists". The term is used as a pejorative but I think its also inaccurate. No one believes that material objects are all that is. Many would say that a universe that operates solely by natural laws summarizes their position but no one knows the basis of those laws and I think it may be something that's fundamentally unknowable. I think a better label for our position is 'anti-superstitionalist' with a 'superstitionalist' being a person willing to invoke ill-defined ad hoc explanations ( such as God) for anything they choose.RodW_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Box, Read my comment:
Meaning is inherently subjective. An experience can be meaningful to one person while another sees it as utterly banal. There is no contradiction there. I am content that my life has meaning to me and to the people I love. I don’t need a Big Meaner in the Sky to regard my life as meaningful.
I know that the Big Meaner is important to you, but I don't need a Big Meaner in order to find meaning in my life. If I find my life to be meaningful (and I do), then it has meaning. Not ultimate meaning, but meaning nonetheless. Why is that so hard for you and Barry to grasp?keith s_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

FYI: I just saw this - I'd checked for a reply on the other post, but hadn't looked at the home page. I'll try to find time to reply later tonight.Aleta_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Keith,
Barry: Say two men come up to a panel painted black. The first one says to his friend, “that panel is black. I don’t like it.” His friend says, “I quite agree that it is painted black, and I don’t like it either. But so long as I pretend it is painted white, it is in fact white to me.” Life has meaning or significance or it does not. It is incoherent to say “life has no meaning or significance but it has meaning and significance to me.”

Keith: But it’s not incoherent to say “life has no ultimate meaning or significance but it still has meaning and significance to me.”
How does the word "ultimate" help you out Keith? What are you saying? "The panel is ultimately painted black, but it is still white to me?"Box_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Barry, In your OP, you are attempting to stack the deck in your favor by limiting "meaning" to the following three definitions: 1. Linguistic intention. 2. Ultimate purpose. 3. Culturally adapted belief system. Meaningful things aren't limited to those three categories. Here's the second definition that Google returns for "meaningful":
having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose. "making our lives rich and meaningful" synonyms: sincere, deep, serious, in earnest, significant, important "a meaningful relationship"
I'm speaking of that kind of meaning in my comment above:
I am content that my life has meaning to me and to the people I love. I don’t need a Big Meaner in the Sky to regard my life as meaningful.
keith s_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

The following exchange from the other thread is relevant, so I'll repost it here. markf, to Barry:
For your information I find it quite bearable to believe “that our life is completely meaningless, that the universe is indifferent to our existence, that literally nothing we say, think or do has any ultimate significance.
keiths:
Me too. It’s enough that life has meaning and significance to us. No need for an imaginary source of “ultimate significance.”
Barry:
Say two men come up to a panel painted black. The first one says to his friend, “that panel is black. I don’t like it.” His friend says, “I quite agree that it is painted black, and I don’t like it either. But so long as I pretend it is painted white, it is in fact white to me.” Life has meaning or significance or it does not. It is incoherent to say “life has no meaning or significance but it has meaning and significance to me.”
keiths:
But it’s not incoherent to say “life has no ultimate meaning or significance but it still has meaning and significance to me.” Meaning is inherently subjective. An experience can be meaningful to one person while another sees it as utterly banal. There is no contradiction there. I am content that my life has meaning to me and to the people I love. I don’t need a Big Meaner in the Sky to regard my life as meaningful.
keith s_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

as to: " but can you honestly say that this quest for understanding is not an adaptive trait that improves survival and reproductive probabilities?" Yes! Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga - video https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL80CAECC36901BCEE Content and Natural Selection - Alvin Plantinga - 2011 http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/Content_Natural_Selection.pdf Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439 etc.. etc...bornagain77_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Sorry Barry, I don't think that purpose and meaning is a truism. That we seek understanding is, but can you honestly say that this quest for understanding is not an adaptive trait that improves survival and reproductive probabilities? If it does, then it can be explained by evolution. I have no problem with the fact that there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to life. I much prefer being responsible for bringing purpose and meaning to my own life. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is just lazy and defeatist. If you prefer to live like this, that is your choice. I chose otherwise.centrestream_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

What is really interesting about the two statements of Dawkins is he will probably tell you something on the order of this: (Note: I have read a quote similar to this from a well known atheist who writes for a popular web site ) My INTELLECTUAL, RATIONAL side realizes there is no meaning. But my EMOTIONAL side chooses to live within the confines of a made up purpose and meaning of my choosing. _______________ What is ironic is that this the attributions are directly backwards. Any INTELLECTUAL, RATIONAL observation of the universe including the impossibility of the unguided origin of life; the fine-tuning for life; the undeniable existence of consciousness, some form of limited free will, and morality - will conclude that at the root of the universe is a creator who has purpose and intent. For EMOTIONAL reasons the materialist denies these observations and satisfies his EMOTIONAL need for NOT GOD with absurd unscientific theories of multiverse, one in 10^140 chances actually being necessary to have occurred because of the anthropic principle, and just-so stories. Thus for EMOTIONAL reasons (they basically don't want there to be a GOD) they adopt a materialist framework. While INTELLECTUALLY and RATIONALLY they admit that it only makes sense to live in a universe of purpose. Exactly backwardsJDH_{November 9, 2014
November
11
Nov
9
09
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply