Why there is no Meaning if Materialism is True

_{Barry Arrington

August 12, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

In my last post I linked to an article in which several atheists discuss how they deal with the lack of meaning in the universe. In response Seversky asks:

What is meant by “meaning” in this context? To me, it sounds like a purpose conceived in the mind of an intelligent being, in this case God.

So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless?

So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence. What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself? After all, if God has a purpose, why can’t you?

Seversky, let us assume for the moment that atheistic materialism is correct. If that is the case, then certain facts follow as a matter of logic, including the following:

The sun is an average star and only one of billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, which is one of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in that vast immensity but space, time, particles and energy.

At first only the light elements existed. But eventually clouds of hydrogen and helium collapsed into stars, and the heavier elements were formed in the nuclear furnaces inside those stars. All of the heavier elements we observe are remnants of burned out stars.

Some of the remnants of those burned out stars eventually coalesced into a planet we call Earth, and eventually a tiny subset of those particles spontaneously turned themselves into simple self-replicators.

Through the process of evolution those simple self-replicators became more and more complex until at last the most complex self-replicators of all, human beings, arose.

Fundamentally, however, humans are nothing but insignificant amalgamations of burned out star stuff on an insignificant rock orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy in an incomprehensibly vast universe.

A rock does not owe moral duties to another rock. The very notion is absurd. A rock is nothing but an amalgamation of burned out star stuff, and it is literally meaningless to say that one amalgamation of burned out star stuff owes a moral duty to another amalgamation of burned out star stuff.

Nothing about that analysis changes if the amalgamation of burned out star stuff is called a human. Thus, the idea that humans owe moral duties to one another is ultimately meaningless. In a universe in which nothing exists but particles in motion, there is no good. There is no evil.

It follows that everything we do is ultimately pointless. The amalgamation of burned out star stuff we call “Hitler” did certain things. The amalgamation of burned out star stuff we call “Mother Teresa” did certain other things. And what Hitler did and what Mother Teresa did are equal in the sense that they are equally pointless.

That, Seversky, is the universe you, as an atheist materialist, imagine you live in. So let us answer your questions:

What is meant by “meaning” in this context?

By “meaning” we mean “significance within a broader context.” There is no meaning in your universe, because nothing we do has any significance within a broader context as my Hitler/Mother Teresa example demonstrates.

So what you are saying is that unless another intelligent being has a purpose in mind for you, your existence is worthless and meaningless?

I am simply asking you to have the courage to acknowledge the logical consequences of your metaphysical assumptions. I understand that you are terrified of those consequences and want to avert your gaze from them at all costs, including very often the cost of descending into logical absurdity. But there they are nevertheless.

So, a question, why should you only have value or worth or meaning if it exists in the mind of another intelligence.

For there to be meaning good and evil must exist in an objective sense. It must really be the case that what Hitler did was “evil” and that what Mother Teresa did was “good” where the words “evil” and “good” mean something beyond “that which I do not prefer” and “that which I do prefer.”

What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself?

Because a transcendent moral code cannot be grounded in the being of an amalgamation of burned out star stuff. Such a code can be grounded only in God’s being. Go back and look at all of the atheist blitherings in that article I linked in my last post. Every single one of them amounts to one of two things: (1) I try not to think about it; or (2) I distract myself with things that amuse me. That is not finding meaning or purpose and only a fool believes it is.

After all, if God has a purpose, why can’t you?

Because only God can impose meaning – through the objective transcendent moral code grounded in his being – on an otherwise meaningless universe.

Comments

Eigenstate says Morality is like the value we place on commodities. We value some commodities and not others. And with respect to any given commodity, we might value it today and not tomorrow, depending on whether we subjectively deem it valuable for whatever pragmatic reason we may have. Yes, as I said, on materialist premises that is exactly correct. Today most of us do not value killing Jews, homosexuals and disabled people. And because we don’t value those practices we call them “evil.” But just as the price of gold rises and falls depending on our subjective assessment of its value, if tomorrow we decide that killing Jews, homosexuals and disabled people is valuable, then those practices will be considered “good.” Eigenstate’s summary of the materialist worldview is spot on. That his nihilism is also itself self-evidently evil should give him pause. It does not. He is proud of it. Believing there was no ultimately difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa makes him feel all grown up and sophisticated. Not like us childish Christians, who naively believe in things like justice. He really is a disgusting little maggot. But he’s our disgusting little maggot, and I am glad we have him to serve as a bad example from time to time. Thanks E.Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Eigenstate @ 20:
This [i.e., my summary of his position] doesn’t reflect my comments at all.
Then he says the same thing that I summarized in different words. Conversation over. Eigenstate, you lie and dissemble. I knew that already and I don’t know what possessed me to attempt to engage with you, the triumph of hope over experience I guess.Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us. Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble. Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.) - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide to Reality

The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak. - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide to Reality
Heartlander_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

@mohammadnursyamsu
You are making the mistake of talking about human behaviour which is “subjective”, and then explaining all the ways in which the behaviour is not subjective. You have to actually describe how the subjectivity itself functions, which is describing how the opinions are chosen of free will.
By subjective, I mean "of the subject" -- pertaining to the thoughts, feelings, preferences and convictions of an individual. That in no way precludes subjective behavior from being deterministic, nor are random dynamics precluded, either. These are orthogonal concepts.
Any choice can turn out several ways. In that sense a choice always looks “random” to a scientist.
"Random" is the term we use for "without purpose, pattern or plan". By that standard, many human choices may look random at some level of description -- when we don't have access to underlying factors that influence or form the decision, we may not have any way to identify purpose, plan or pattern in some choice or position. That said, though, the fact that other options exist as plausible choices for a given individual has bearing on the randomness or non-randomness of the choice. Again, these are orthogonal concepts you are trying to connect (apparently). Randomness is not identified due to the fact that other choices exist, but rather is identified through our inability to assign a pattern, or purpose to the choice, to fail to locate underlying causes for the choice that was made (which may exist, we just don't have access to them).
And to say behaviour is based on evolved human nature, that is just a variation of nazism again. Free will of people is the human spirit expressing itself, by choosing.
Hmmm. I think you have that reversed, with Nazism being one of many diverse products of human psychology. As for free will, that's another subject, but for Barry's OP, it doesn't matter: his point fails just as completely no matter which view one takes on libertartian free will or determinism. Again, orthogonal concepts at work. Barry has an idiosyncratic and self-serving view of "meaning" he's advancing, and it's easily shown as just that with simple and at-hand examples that show it as such. If Barry agrees to write a check in exchange for something, he's refuting this OP in the act of doing so, engaging in "meaning" for money which has no ultimate "meaning" and cannot have such -- it's a oxymoron "objective meaning" just as "objective value". Bother are inherently transcendental upon subjective psychology. "Value" and "meaning" is "what subjective minds create", and are incoherent terms outside of the context of the subject.eigenstate_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
Why does God choosing that your life has meaning give it any objective meaning? It can’t by definition. It’s just meaning imputed to you by another mind, and act of will.
I have never thought of it that way but eigenstate has a good point. How would you answer the question that since God has made a decision about our lives, aren't we all the result of the ultimate subjectivity?Carpathian_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

@eigenstate You are making the mistake of talking about human behaviour which is "subjective", and then explaining all the ways in which the behaviour is not subjective. You have to actually describe how the subjectivity itself functions, which is describing how the opinions are chosen of free will. Any choice can turn out several ways. In that sense a choice always looks "random" to a scientist. And to say behaviour is based on evolved human nature, that is just a variation of nazism again. Free will of people is the human spirit expressing itself, by choosing.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

@Barry,
I will boil eigenstate’s lengthy comment down for a readers: There really is no essential difference between what Hitler did and what Mother Teresa did. For our own idiosyncratic reasons we just happen to value one and not the other because for pragmatic reasons we think one “works” and the other does not. And just like the value of gold rises and falls, if we decide to reassess our judgment of value, our reassessed judgment will be just as valid as our prior judgment.
This doesn't reflect my comments at all. The psychology of meaning (and similarly our psychology of value) is not idiosyncratic, or to whatever extent it is irrelevant to the point being made. It's subjective, which is just to say, "human". The price of gold rises and falls based on the market dynamics for it, the "combined psychology" concerning it. It doesn't just go up and don't arbitrarily, but functions as a rough index of the equilibrium of supply and demand. Similarly, our understanding of self, others, and the relationship and values between all parties is subjective, but not arbitrary or random. It's based on evolved human nature (and objective set of facts that forms and informs the basis for our subjective psychology), and our experiences/interactions with other and the world around us. It's a subjective position, like value of money, grounded in, and inextricably tied to our nature, and the environment we live in.
Yes, eigenstate, that is exactly correct on materialist premises. The fact that your logic leads to horror and despair should at least give you pause (though I doubt it will). It may really be the case that horror and despair is the appropriate response to a meaningless universe. That is certainly the case if God does not exist. I’m betting you are wrong.
I was raised a Christian, unfortunately. So I know the burden you are laboring under. I also understand the "horror-based reaction" you are advocating here, because of that. The consequences don't change the truth of the facts, Barry. if there is no "cosmic meaning"for you or me, as I can well understand from the the narcissism that passes for evangelical Christianity ("so humbled to be a Christian -- God has a perfect plan for me, and has counted every hair on my head, and has prepared a mansion for me to convalesce in for eternity!") I grew up in, it definitely require some growing up, and that is difficult indeed. There is no "cosmic justice" coming for Hitler, or Mother Teresa (not anywhere near such an execrable figure, but not someone to elevate as an admirable human in my view, btw). Martin Luther King, Jr. doesn't get to "walk the streets of gold", either, as some kind of compensation(???) for being murdered in what should have been the middle of his life. That's the real world, Barry. Wake up. It has lots of features that aren't comfortable or happy or easily reconcilable with our tender psychology. But fantasizing about your cosmic value, you as the "real objective gold" of all the universe doesn't make it so. Even if God does exist, your whole point is wrong: meaning is just as subjective even and especially if God is real. Your "meaning" is then, idiosyncratic in the most thoroughgoing sense of the word. Why does God choosing that your life has meaning give it any objective meaning? It can't by definition. It's just meaning imputed to you by another mind, and act of will. That's another subject, but even on your own understanding, your point is confused and incorrect, once again.eigenstate_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington, eigenstate has a good analogy with money. Different currencies work for different economies just like different gods work for different religions. Gods and religions are just as subjective as currencies and their economies and all seem to work well for the members of their group.Carpathian_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Again, it is simply because materialism provides no room for opinion at all. When all is material, then every issue about what is real, is an issue of fact, what the material consists of. So either beauty is material, or it simply is not real, and therefore is ignored. Goodness, beauty, love, God, the soul etc. are all spiritual, meaning 1. that the existence of them is a matter of opinion, 2. that they choose which way the material turns out. This is why materialists always deny the fact freedom is real, because the concept of choosing only functions when the question about what the agency of a decision is, is regarded as a matter of opinion. Materialists are always bound to some genetic, environmental, or psychological mechanism FORCING what the human being does. That is why all materialists were also racist eugenicists prior to the holocaust. After the holocaust they figured out that the worth of a human being is not a fact, and what they then did was to declare that every fact is an opinion, postmodernism. Then the law of gravity became an opinion, everything became opinion, and facts became agreed upon opinions. But over the years they forgot about the holocaust, and then they noted how bizarre it is to have the law of gravity be an opinion. So now materialists are back to their usual social darwinism again, in one form or another.mohammadnursyamsu_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

I will boil eigenstate’s lengthy comment down for a readers: There really is no essential difference between what Hitler did and what Mother Teresa did. For our own idiosyncratic reasons we just happen to value one and not the other because for pragmatic reasons we think one “works” and the other does not. And just like the value of gold rises and falls, if we decide to reassess our judgment of value, our reassessed judgment will be just as valid as our prior judgment. Yes, eigenstate, that is exactly correct on materialist premises. The fact that your logic leads to horror and despair should at least give you pause (though I doubt it will). It may really be the case that horror and despair is the appropriate response to a meaningless universe. That is certainly the case if God does not exist. I’m betting you are wrong.Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Barry, Why is a hunk of gold, or a fistful of dollars, "valuable"? This is a question that can help you see the self-serving nature of your choice around "meaning". Gold has no objective financial or economic value, no "cosmic value"in the sense of your "meaning from God". And yet, we organize our societies around this subjective, ephemeral understanding of "value". Gold is valuable just because we agree it is, and find some reward in keeping it, trading it, or using it to produce things. But there's just a little, which to say, zero, objective grounding for value outside the minds the humans, in precisely the same way there is no grounding for any "cosmic meaning" for our lives. But this is no deficit for us, just a burden carried by the superstitious who cannot grasp how meaning (and by extension, economic value) are fundamentally features of human psychology. Assuming you can understand the "value" concept a little more clearly -- it's not as religiously burdened as the Christian view of "meaning" is -- we might list similar items to those in the OP on "value of gold": 1 Fundamentally, however, gold is nothing but insignificant amalgamations of burned out star stuff on an insignificant rocks orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy in an incomprehensibly vast universe. 2.Gold, therefore doesn't and can't have any value. The very notion is absurd. Gold is nothing but an amalgamation of burned out star stuff, and it is literally valueless; to say that one amalgamation of burned out star stuff is more "valuable" than another amalgamation of burned out star stuff is ridiculous on its face. 3. Nothing about that analysis changes if the amalgamation of burned out star stuff we call "gold". Thus, the idea that gold has "value" is ultimately meaningless. In a universe in which nothing exists but particles in motion, there is no "value". It follows that everything we see, touch, and otherwise interact with is utterly without value -- it can't possibly have value, because of what it is! If you can understand that the valuation of gold, or a wad of $100 bill is subjective, then you have what you need to clearly see the error in your post. If you use money to buy your house, or demand money from clients as payment for your services, you are literally living out the reality of subjective-as-effectual-and-substantive that quite nicely mirrors how you and everyone else works with "meaning", as a subjective exercise in personal and collective psychology. I mean, how can we organize our society around something that ultimately has no value, is not grounded in anything more than our collective agreement this or that has currency, value??? If your point on "meaning"has any merit at all, this should not happen, and not be possible to get off the ground, let alone serve as the foundation for our social organization. But, currency-as-subjective-concept works, and works fantastically well as a pragmatic matter. So, too, with meaning as a view of our own place in society, our own desires, goals and our relationships with those we interact with. It's perfectly without objective meaning, or any universal mystical properties, but just like the value of money, such is not a lack or a problem for us in the real world.eigenstate_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

PHV
all you’ve done is observed that Hitler believed what he was doing was good.
Not even close to what I said. I will give you another chance though. If you want to engage in a true exchange of views instead of just spout your talking points, take another run at it.
Which raises the reciprocal point of how non-materialists prioritize one version of Truth over another version of Truth. Because even if Truth (i.e., an objective metric for good and evil) exists, people can’t access it objectively. People argue over good and evil, and many different people claim to have privileged access to many different versions of it.
Whether objective moral truth exists is an ontological issue. Our capacity to understand and apply it is an epistemological issue. Before I go further, do you understand the difference or should I explain it to you?
I still don’t see any logical connection between your assertions.
That puts you in a fairly small minority. All of the atheists in the article I linked understood the connection. I’m sorry I can’t help you understand the obvious. That’s the thing about “obviousness.” If someone denies it, there is no helping them by pointing to yet more basic principles.Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

The first question that must be answered is whether the concept of “good” means anything other than “what I [or some group of people] happen to prefer at this particular time.” If it does not, then Hitler actually was doing good if he was doing what he preferred. This is a truism: if Hitler believed what he was doing was good, then he believed what he was doing was good. Truisms aren't particularly useful or interesting; all you've done is observed that Hitler believed what he was doing was good. That doesn't really help us understand the observable phenomenon of materialists condemning Hitler. On materialist premises NOTHING compels you to agree or to prioritize anyone’s beliefs – whether that “anyone” be Hitler or Mother Teresa – over your own for the simple reason that on materialist premises there is no standard other than your own, and there is no standard by which we can judge whether the standard of one amalgamation of burned out star stuff is superior to that standard of another amalgamation of burned out star stuff. Which raises the reciprocal point of how non-materialists prioritize one version of Truth over another version of Truth. Because even if Truth (i.e., an objective metric for good and evil) exists, people can't access it objectively. People argue over good and evil, and many different people claim to have privileged access to many different versions of it. So "NOTHING compels [a materialist] to agree or to prioritize anyone’s beliefs," what compels a non-materialist to prioritize one subjectively-interpreted version of Truth over another? In my experience, beliefs about objective good and evil track personal and cultural history very closely--people believe what their parents and peers believe. That's not what I'd expect to see if there's a single Truth that everyone accesses equally. You remind me of my four year-old grandson. Ever the charmer. I still don't see any logical connection between your assertions. Perhaps you don't, either.Pro Hac Vice_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Sean again:
That a rock is “an amalgamation of burned out star stuff” is irrelevant.
You’re kidding right? On materialist premises a rock is an amalgamation of burned out star stuff. A human is an amalgamation of burned out star stuff. Everything we see that is made of an element heavier than hydrogen or helium is an amalgamation of burned out star stuff. There is nothing but various amalgamations of burned out star stuff. But Sean Samis insists that some amalgamations of burned out star stuff owe other amalgamations of burned out star stuff moral duties. And at the same time he insists that an object’s status as amalgamations of burned out star stuff -- which makes it essentially the same as everything else -- is irrelevant. As is frequently the case, beyond the obvious error of the assertion is the fascinating psychological question of why an otherwise intelligent person would say something so wildly and obviously wrong.Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

sean samis
A rock owes no moral duty to anything else because a rock is not capable of performing a moral or immoral act; it is inanimate and insentient.
What is the source of moral duty? Sean Samis nominates “sentience.” There are two problems with this. First, on materialist premises “sentience” is an illusion. Do amalgamations of burned out star stuff have subjective self awareness, intentionality and the experience of subject-object duality and qualia? The materialist answer is that all of that is an illusion, mere folk psychology that no sophisticated person believes anymore. You don’t have to believe me. Just ask Dan Dennett and Sam Harris. But even more problematic for Sean is a second problem. His “solution” for the grounding of moral duties suffers from the same problem as every other materialist “solution” to that problem – it is completely and totally arbitrary. Amalgamation of burned out star stuff = AOBOSF AOBOSF 1: Moral duties are grounded in the fact that you and I are sentient. AOBOSF 2: [Shoots AOBOSF 1 in the head] Sez who?Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Pro Hac Vice
Hitler believed he was doing a greater good. (Actually I’m not sure that’s true, it’s possible he was just using that as an opportunistic excuse, but for the sake of argument.)
The first question that must be answered is whether the concept of “good” means anything other than “what I [or some group of people] happen to prefer at this particular time.” If it does not, then Hitler actually was doing good if he was doing what he preferred. Of course, the absurdity of the conclusion means the premise must be flawed.
And, if materialism is true, then NO ONE can tell him he wasn’t ok seeking that end. Why not?
See above.
To be clear, this isn’t something that I or any materialist I’ve ever met believes.
Yes, you and most other materialists like to have your cake and eat it too. You express moral outrage at what Hitler did and at the same time you cannot ground your outrage in anything other than your (or your group’s) subjective preferences.
What compels us to agree? Or to prioritize their beliefs over our own? We judge other people by our standards, not theirs
That is just exactly the point PHV. On materialist premises NOTHING compels you to agree or to prioritize anyone’s beliefs – whether that “anyone” be Hitler or Mother Teresa – over your own for the simple reason that on materialist premises there is no standard other than your own, and there is no standard by which we can judge whether the standard of one amalgamation of burned out star stuff is superior to that standard of another amalgamation of burned out star stuff.
just like you do
Assume your conclusion much?
Barry: By “meaning” we mean “significance within a broader context.” …. For there to be meaning good and evil must exist in an objective sense. PHV: Why? I don’t see the logical connection between these assertions. Why can’t a “broader context” exist without an objective metric for good and evil?
You remind me of my four year-old grandson. If you answer a question he responds with “why?” and if you answer that question he will respond with “why?” until ultimately you just have to say, “that’s just the way it is son.” So PHV, I will skip to the end. Meaning exists only in the context of an objective standard of good and evil, because that it what meaning means. If you cannot understand or accept why that is so, there is nothing I can do for you.Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

DarelRex:
I’m starting to think that you can’t really be a scientific ID proponent and believe in a religion too.
That would be a surprise to leading ID proponent David Berlinski, an agnostic.
The temptation is just too great to think, “If we weren’t intentionally created, then life has no meaning, therefore we were created.”
That is not the argument I made in the OP. It does not even resemble the argument I made in the OP.
It’s the flip-side of “If there’s any such thing as supernatural intervention, then science becomes impossible, therefore there is no such thing as supernatural intervention.”
That is an absurd argument. I am glad you agree.
What evidence, if any, indicates that we were intentionally created?
The issue is beyond the scope of the OP, but oh, how about the existence of a semiotic code in every cell of every living creature – and that’s just for starters.
And what evidence, if any, indicates that supernatural intervention has occurred?
The issue is beyond the scope of the OP (I'm beginning to think you don't really grasp the argument of the OP) Also, I don’t know what you mean by “supernatural intervention.” But if you are asking for evidence that God exists, how about: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/astonishingly-stupid-things-atheists-say/Barry Arrington_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Barry; As frequently happens on this site, your argument goes off the rails when you arrogate to yourself the privilege of speaking for your opponent. That’s a bad habit. Your list of points supposedly coming from “atheistic materialism” are not TOO BAD through number 6. In 7. you introduce the idea of moral duties without any explanation, and then slide into the ditch. A rock owes no moral duty to anything else because a rock is not capable of performing a moral or immoral act; it is inanimate and insentient. That a rock is “an amalgamation of burned out star stuff” is irrelevant. Your points 8 and 9 are invalid because they are based on your invalid point 7. More when I have some time for it. sean s.sean samis_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Meaning is an immaterial concept. Materialism, by definition, takes materialists out of any discussion of meaning. They want it that way, per their philosophy. If one gets on the internet pretending otherwise, you can conclude they are just on to make noise. Yes, it's a cry for help. Andrewasauber_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Severesky writes
What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself?
I will try to give this statement respect as a sincere inquiry, but it is difficult to do. One of the things that frustrates me about the arguments of materialists is that they use the language of theism in their arguments. Do you not understand Severesky, that in the materialist universe there is no such entity as "yourself"? Think about it. Why do you draw a boundary around one set of molecules and call it "self". Any attempt to answer that question runs into contradictions. Think of possible answers and the ridiculousness of them. 1. The objects that are constrained to move with me. - Does that mean that when I put on a piece of clothing it is part of self or not part of self. If a violent man physically captures another person, is that part of self? An unborn fetus, is that part of self? The microbes in my gut - is that part of self? 2. OKl How about at the collection of cells I can innately control with my mind. I wouldn't even choose to go there. To suggest the word "control" can not belong in a materialistic universe. 3. How about any part of which injuring it causes pain or feeling to me. Again there are all the problems of legitimate parts of self which can be removed with no pain. The truth is that in any purely materialistic worldview there can be no consistent reason for separating the world into "self" and "non-self" So to ask the question "What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself?" under the assumption of materialism is an incoherent question because it assumes something (self) which really CAN NOT exist (except by illusion) under the given suppositions. I hope that was clear and not too disrespectful.JDH_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

I consider it a GROSS conceit to assume that any human being can guess the Purpose of the Deity. It's like ants trying to guess why that crazy human watered the lawn, times a thousand. I get to play with my grandchildren again today. While I play with the babies, all meaning applies to 30 second intervals and has most to do with diapers, who is about to attempt something dangerous, and how fast can I produce FOOD, suitably prepared for very young humans. Now, for an adult who is not intimately bound to very young humans, being the best gosh darn Fuller Brush salesman is clearly a Purpose. And who is to say that this is not a good Purpose? On the Hitler/Mother Teresa thing, Stalin had already murdered more civilians than Hitler ever did before Hitler even started. And the ONLY person in the world trying to STOP Stalin was... Chancellor Hitler (and the Pope). So, is the reason that Hitler needed to be prevented from fulfilling his Purpose (ending Bolshevism) that stopping Hitler will allow Stalin to kill even more millions of people after the war to stop Hitler? I am just finishing "The Imperial Cruise" by James Bradley. It explores the background to Taft's visit to Japan in 1905 (to encourage the Japanese to seize the independent kingdom of Korea) and describes in some detail the specifics of American (i.e., WASP) pursuit of Aryan supremacy across the Americas and out into the Pacific. How exactly is American "Manifest Destiny" different than German "Lebensraum"? Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos died in American concentration camps after the Philippines had been declared "pacified" after the imperialistic Spanish-American War. But then it was the Purpose of WASP America to exterminate the lesser races, including "the Pacific Negroes", for the betterment of humanity. Only Anglo-Saxons of pure blood were fit to reproduce... Hitler specifically planned to follow the examples of the US and England. Americans lynched Negroes, and no one was punished. So why shouldn't Germans lynch social undesirables? The English administered provinces of Hindoos for their own good, so why shouldn't the Germans treat Slavs the same way? And of course the Americans set aside "reservations" for American Indians, so what's wrong with the Germans creating reservations for the Lesser Races in the Ukraine? It's either ALWAYS wrong, and ALL examples should be equally condemned. Or it's a matter of personal preference and has no grand significance. A final example. Some years back now, I read a review of a book written by a historian who spent some years reading and analyzing the "foundling" records at a number of convents in France. For most of the period when the Catholic Church ran the morals of Europe, women who experienced an unwanted pregnancy and birth left their newborns on the doorstep of the local convent. The good sisters then took the infant in, baptized him or her, and accepted responsibility for raising the orphan. What the historian discovered, however, was that the death rate for the orphans was over 95% within the first year. This pattern continued for CENTURIES. In theory, each player was doing a moral good. In practice, everyone involved (including the officials of the local villages) was operating an Infanticide Machine that killed unwanted babies. So, is it your stated Purpose that matters? Or the practical Effect?mahuna_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

By “meaning” we mean “significance within a broader context.” .... For there to be meaning good and evil must exist in an objective sense. Why? I don't see the logical connection between these assertions. Why can't a "broader context" exist without an objective metric for good and evil?Pro Hac Vice_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

I'm starting to think that you can't really be a scientific ID proponent and believe in a religion too. The temptation is just too great to think, "If we weren't intentionally created, then life has no meaning, therefore we were created." It's the flip-side of "If there's any such thing as supernatural intervention, then science becomes impossible, therefore there is no such thing as supernatural intervention." Both arguments are anti-scientific avoidance of the real, scientific desire to know: What evidence, if any, indicates that we were intentionally created? And what evidence, if any, indicates that supernatural intervention has occurred? (Search "Barry Arrington permitted" to see my prior comments on Mr. Arrington's UD arguments.)DarelRex_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

He thought he was doing a greater good for humanity Yes, Hitler thought that. And that's true in any case, isn't it? Materialists and non-materialists agree on that much: Hitler believed he was doing a greater good. (Actually I'm not sure that's true, it's possible he was just using that as an opportunistic excuse, but for the sake of argument.) And, if materialism is true, then NO ONE can tell him he wasn’t ok seeking that end. Why not? To be clear, this isn't something that I or any materialist I've ever met believes. We acknowledge, as you do, that bad actors believe they're good actors. What compels us to agree? Or to prioritize their beliefs over our own? We judge other people by our standards, not theirs, just like you do.Pro Hac Vice_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

What is hilarious and sad at the same time is that atheists fight tooth and nail against the possibility of God/design, and this apparently gives them "meaning".computerist_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

"What is wrong with finding a meaning or purpose for yourself?" So, I take it that Severesky has no problem with Hitler finding meaning in the slaughter of sub-human races? He thought he was doing a greater good for humanity by eliminating the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, disabled, elderly, homosexual and others who contaminated the human species. And, if materialism is true, then NO ONE can tell him he wasn't ok seeking that end. It makes no logical sense to impugn Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao or any other tyrant for their slaughter of "innocent" humans. Since we know that Severesky doesn't feel that way about Hitler, the only conclusion that makes sense is that Barry is 100% right; the One who made up the "game" is the only One who can make up the "rules."OldArmy94_{August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply