Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_j2loxti wrote
Reply to comment by _Zirath_ in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
> Knowledge of this future event should lead one to ask now "what are we working and striving towards that won't ultimately be lost?"
Why should it? This assertion is based entirely on your personal values or wants.
> It has palpable consequences for the present, since all of our hopes to leave behind a better future will become null and void ventures.
The "hope to leave behind a better future" is not universal, but those that have such hopes typically only look to the next generation or two, often leaving the rest to chance or without consideration.
> So again, why "live well" or do this or do that?
Why live a life according to your personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, and to a degree social and familial pressures? Because it's your life to live.
By the way, did you know people with no emotions -- and I mean no emotions whatsoever -- are incapable of making decisions? Damage to the orbitofrontal cortex in the frontal lobe can result in the condition and it goes to show much of an effect emotions have on our sense of meaning.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lr5dj wrote
To your question: "Why should it?" Because we often derive meaning and value from the future impact of our actions. No one wants to labor for something they deem worthwhile only to have it destroyed.
"Those that have such hopes typically only look to the next generation or two, often leaving the rest to chance or without consideration."
In either case, all of mankind's efforts will be reduced to nothing. That's a big pill to swallow now that makes a difference to one's perception of life.
"Why live a life according to your personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, and to a degree social and familial pressures? Because it's your life to live."
This just seems to affirm my point: there's no human-independent reason to do what we do. We will lose everything and we simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time, on naturalism.
"By the way, did you know people with no emotions -- and I mean no emotions whatsoever -- are incapable of making decisions? Damage to the orbitofrontal cortex in the frontal lobe can result in the condition and it goes to show much of an effect emotions have on our sense of meaning."
For one, that is interesting. On a more critical note, this is like saying people who are blind are unable to apprehend the color red. Just because our sense of vision is critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of the color red doesn't mean the color red isn't an objective reality. Similarly, emotions may be critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of meaning, but that doesn't mean meaning itself isn't an objective reality.
Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_j2lvfkz wrote
> Because we often derive meaning and value from the future impact of our actions. No one wants to labor for something they deem worthwhile only to have it destroyed.
People don't derive meaning and value solely from the future impact of their actions though. A great deal of meaning and value is derived from experience and impression, no matter how transitory.
> In either case, all of mankind's efforts will be reduced to nothing. That's a big pill to swallow now that makes a difference to one's perception of life.
I don't think it makes anymore of a difference in our day-to-day lives than the realities of climate change, economic collapse, a global pandemic, global conflict, or the fact that most of us will be forgotten in a generation or two. But people continue to find reasons -- usually personal reasons -- to live.
> This just seems to affirm my point: there's no human-independent reason to do what we do. We will lose everything and we simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time, on naturalism.
Many people -- including theists -- choose to do nothing more than "simply do what we enjoy now to bide the time". But that isn't the only available option. Personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, etc. aren't exclusively concerned with the enjoyment of one's life.
> Just because our sense of vision is critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of the color red doesn't mean the color red isn't an objective reality. Similarly, emotions may be critical to our ability to apprehend the objective reality of meaning, but that doesn't mean meaning itself isn't an objective reality.
An "objective reality of meaning" isn't necessary or evident though. And the available evidence suggests the meaning "apprehended" by emotion is explicitly personal -- for example one patient with damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (who, again, had an inability to make decisions) remarked when listening to a song that they remembered having emotional reactions to the song before but after their accident they felt nothing at all when listening to it.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lytak wrote
To your point: "People don't derive meaning and value solely from the future impact of their actions though. A great deal of meaning and value is derived from experience and impression, no matter how transitory."
Note, I said "often" not "solely." I think it's plainly obvious that people often commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. If it all gets destroyed in the end, what's the point? What are we progressing towards that won't already be lost to oblivion and then why should these things matter to us?
"I don't think it makes anymore of a difference in our day-to-day lives than the realities of climate change, economic collapse, a global pandemic, global conflict, or the fact that most of us will be forgotten in a generation or two. But people continue to find reasons -- usually personal reasons -- to live."
I think the coming erasure of all things, especially at the end of one's immediate life, makes the whole endeavor worthless. People can try and supply themselves with self-imposed reasons to live, but the universe doesn't care on naturalism, and that's no better than religion being considered a self-imposed reason to live.
"Personal values, emotions, needs, and wants, etc. aren't exclusively concerned with the enjoyment of one's life."
Why would any of those things matter on naturalism beyond trying to make it to the grave comfortably?
"for example one patient with damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (who, again, had an inability to make decisions) remarked when listening to a song that they remembered having emotional reactions to the song before but after their accident they felt nothing at all when listening to it."
Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.
Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_j2m077h wrote
> Note, I said "often" not "solely." I think it's plainly obvious that people often commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. If it all gets destroyed in the end, what's the point? What are we progressing towards that won't already be lost to oblivion and then why should these things matter to us?
I agree. People often do commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. -- but that doesn't mean they do so with the expectation or under the condition that the results are eternal or permanent. And that doesn't mean people cannot believe temporary or transitory actions can't be deeply meaningful or won't "make a difference" either.
> Why would any of those things matter on naturalism beyond trying to make it to the grave comfortably?
Because people don't live objectively, their lives are personal affairs.
> Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.
By this reasoning similar emotional states should produce similar apprehensions of meaning, but they don't.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2pqphg wrote
"People often do commit to all sorts of deeply meaningful things with an expectation that it will "make a difference," "leave their mark," etc. -- but that doesn't mean they do so with the expectation or under the condition that the results are eternal or permanent."
People can also just be unaware of things like the heat death of the universe or the futility of their actions. This doesn't mean their actions aren't inherently so. To be aware of what naturalism entails is to be aware of the nihilistic implications it carries.
"And that doesn't mean people cannot believe temporary or transitory actions can't be deeply meaningful or won't "make a difference" either."
Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?
Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.
"By this reasoning similar emotional states should produce similar apprehensions of meaning, but they don't."
Not really. People with working eyes commonly have different subjective experiences of their objective surrounding realities. This doesn't make those surroundings unreal.
Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_j2q3dx1 wrote
> People can also just be unaware of things like the heat death of the universe or the futility of their actions. This doesn't mean their actions aren't inherently so. To be aware of what naturalism entails is to be aware of the nihilistic implications it carries.
People have a way of getting caught up in moments, being carried away by their emotions, and running with new ideas. They don't usually adopt a permanent attitude or behaviour based on the absurdly distant future.
> Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?
2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them.
> Sure, if my eyes were damaged, I would not only fail to apprehend the objective reality of things being colored red, but I would fail to apprehend my subjective experience of seeing red- of which the color itself is an objective feature of reality.
> Not really. People with working eyes commonly have different subjective experiences of their objective surrounding realities. This doesn't make those surroundings unreal.
What colour is the dress? Was that a rabbit or a duck? Do you see Rubin's vase or two opposing faces?
If meaning were universal, if it were objective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no arguments about what it means to love or the meaning of a cigar.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2q72g1 wrote
"People have a way of getting caught up in moments, being carried away by their emotions, and running with new ideas. They don't usually adopt a permanent attitude or behaviour based on the absurdly distant future."
I mean, I think they should since it has implications for every action they take now e.g. their actions are null and void in the face of heat death, among other things- that matters now. But I don't think this is all that important to discuss, because it's another thing altogether to talk about what is the case. People think they're leaving their mark, making a difference, etc. but are in fact only constructing what is to be destroyed. Adding time in between doesn't change that and only adds the illusion of lasting effect. I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wiped of its contents.
"2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them."
This example only matters at all to anyone because we're here to be aware of it. This example is less touching than it is depressing, which is more or less my point.
"What colour is the dress? Was that a rabbit or a duck? Do you see Rubin's vase or two opposing faces? If meaning were universal, if it were objective, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There would be no arguments about what it means to love or the meaning of a cigar."
Frankly, apples and oranges. People do find similarities and come to similar conclusions about meaning all the time. A more analogous set of questions would be: "Is that duck forwards or broadside?" or "How red is that dress to you?" which involves the subjective element of the observer superimposed on the objective reality. To your second point, that's plainly false, as people come to different conclusions about objective matters all the time. The students in a calculus class have different answers to the same math question, but that doesn't mean there isn't an objectively correct answer. Misperception of an objective thing doesn't make it not objective.
Sidenote: This last part of the discussion on meaning is interesting and all, but it's really not relevant to the main discussion, since I agree that on naturalism, there is no reason why meaning would be objective.
Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_j2qa4cr wrote
> Who will these temporary things matter to when the universe is dead and empty?
> > 2000 years ago in the city of Pompeii a parent had love for their child, a man gave a beggar bread, and two lovers shared an embrace. And absolutely none of it matters to you or me, or anyone alive today, but it mattered to them and that was enough for them.
> > > This example only matters at all to anyone because we're here to be aware of it.
I pity you.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2qb6ns wrote
Ok, feel free to pity me, but I think you're missing the point: I am happily a theist. I don't believe the world is meaningless, purposeless, etc personally. It is the naturalist that is pitiful, because when he is led to the conclusions of his worldview, he is left without hope, meaning, or purpose, except that which he can delude himself into having subjectively.
Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_j2qcbdb wrote
This isn't a compelling monologue. All that you've convinced me of is that family, love, music, and everything else in your life is meaningless and hollow without the promise of permanence and righteousness. Honestly, you've turned me away from theism even more.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2qdjvv wrote
For one, it's not a monologue, as we've been having an exchange of words. Personally, my life is rich in meaning because it is rooted in the One who imbues meaning and creates with purpose. And I think the fact that you so clearly believe there is meaning to be had even when your worldview denies the objective reality of such things is a sign of naturalism's weakness. Your decision to turn away from or towards theism is entirely your own.
Hanzo_The_Ninja t1_j2qe2z1 wrote
lol How childish do you have to be to take offense to the very idea of personal meaning, to need your meaning to be universal?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments