Random destinies

[rusmeister]

If I pose that same question about the man dying of thirst in the desert, would you make the same argument denying that it indicates that water exists? Yes, it's an assumption, and a darn good one - in fact, competing assumptions become highly improbable.

[Loredoctor]

If I pose that same question about the man dying of thirst in the desert, would you make the same argument denying that it indicates that water exists? Yes, it's an assumption, and a darn good one - in fact, competing assumptions become highly improbable.

I have to admit that your analogy does not suffice. Just because we desire something - meaning - does not mean it necessarily exists. It is equally probable that the very desire betrays something human - such as the urge to explain the universe. A desire named does not make the object of the desire real.

Water is as tangible as the desire to quench one's thirst, but that does not mean it can be equated to 'meaning'.

[Fist and Faith]

Gotta disagree with you, Rus. Of course, that was a foregone conclusion with this topic, eh? But I'll tell you what I think is wrong with your analogy.

If a person is dying of thirst, then it must be true that the person would live if that thirst was quenched. Yes, there must be water (or something) that has been quenching that thirst throughout the person's life, or that person would not have lived this long in the first place.

Not the same with meaning. It is not necessary. We can live minutes without oxygen, days without water, weeks without food, and forever without an answer to the question of meaning. (Wish I could remember the tv show where the wise dwarf said that.) Nobody is going to die without the answer to this question. Sure, you could be right. There may be a Governor. But this line of reasoning is not evidence of it.

The human psyche has many oddities; many of them fears. But they are not evidence that each has a metaphysical, uh, answer/solution/whatever.

[Avatar]

Agree with Lore again...the analogy is inaccurate. Yes, water exists. But his wish for it does not mean it will exist in the desert.

--A

[rusmeister]

Gotta disagree with you, Rus. Of course, that was a foregone conclusion with this topic, eh? But I'll tell you what I think is wrong with your analogy.

If a person is dying of thirst, then it must be true that the person would live if that thirst was quenched. Yes, there must be water (or something) that has been quenching that thirst throughout the person's life, or that person would not have lived this long in the first place.

Not the same with meaning. It is not necessary. We can live minutes without oxygen, days without water, weeks without food, and forever without an answer to the question of meaning. (Wish I could remember the tv show where the wise dwarf/midget said that.) Nobody is going to die without the answer to this question. Sure, you could be right. There may be a Governor. But this line of reasoning is not evidence of it.

The human psyche has many oddities; many of them fears. But they are not evidence that each has a metaphysical, uh, answer/solution/whatever.

There's one thing we may disagree on. It is certainly evidence. It is certainly not proof. You may disagree with the evidence, just as some creationists disagree with evidence for evolution - and the evidence is not proof.

You speak about being able to "live forever (understood as 'a lifetime') without an answer to the question of meaning." This is also a place where I would differ - sure, your body does not necessarily need meaning to biologically function - but anyone faced with death wants it to have some kind of meaning, even when they cannot perceive any meaning. Whether it's for your loved ones, your country, your faith or whatever, nobody wants their life and death to have no meaning. And it's absence can have a physiological effect on a person - what we call "the will to live".

Also, let's distinguish between fantasy desires and universal needs. If you were to tell me that you require no meaning to your life and death; that you do not experience this desire I'd call that poppycock. Obviously, we can't argue if this self-evident proposition is denied.

Speaking logically, it is an observed phenomenon that where genuine needs exist, it is possible to fill them, that the things that fill that need exist. We do not limit this to crude physical needs - we admit the need for abstract things like love, and can see that the mind and soul have needs as well as the body. The body analogy just gets the idea across more quickly because it is tangible.

Oh, and Avatar - I agree with that last (although I would insist on saying "his need for it", rather than "his wish", which may imply a lack of need) - but the point is that it DOES exist.
Существует. You may not understand it (like that Russian word), but it does exist.

[Loredoctor]

Speaking logically, it is an observed phenomenon that where genuine needs exist, it is possible to fill them, that the things that fill that need exist. We do not limit this to crude physical needs - we admit the need for abstract things like love, and can see that the mind and soul have needs as well as the body. The body analogy just gets the idea across more quickly because it is tangible.

Again, that does not mean that meaning exists. All your example proves is that if we want meaning, the individual invents it. Which is not the same as meaning actually exists. For example. Two individuals of different faiths see an event and interpret it in two different ways - which has happened many times throughout history. If there really was meaning in the universe, then the fact that they interpret it differently just highlights the human predisposition to invent a 'narrative' for reality. Considering that each individual in the world does this every day, and that therefore there are billions of narratives, it really does show that there is really no meaning for the universe.

Most things just happen, for no reason at all. Humans narrate it, 'after the fact', the same way we see things in the clouds.

[Vain]

If I read Lore and Av correctly on this one, we human beings are nothing more than developed animals that have managed to concoct a story around how we managed to be as we are. Well technically, we have concocted a few stories but none of them are based on fact.

If that's how you feel, then how do you get by without your life having any meaning - or at least pursuing that which may end up giving it meaning?

[Avatar]

It's up to every one of us to provide the meaning for our own lives. We get to decide what life means for us.

Personally, I sometimes find it comforting to realise that in the long run, none of it really matters...that the universe will grind on regardless of you, I, or the entire human race.

The meaning comes from ourselves. Not some great external plan. There is no plan. There's just us.

--A

[Vain]

That leads me to ask another question. If "alien" lifeforms were to suddenly appear on earth, would that invalidate God?

[Avatar]

Luckily not an issue I have to resolve myself. If I was the church though, I could probably figure a way round it...Elijah maybe...

--A

[wayfriend]

Is a person involved in a nasty accident, that leaves them maimed for life, in that situation because of something that happened 5 years ago or 5 minutes ago? Is it because they decided not to shave in the morning or because they bought a car two years ago that had sudden mechanical failure?

Shaving would have set off a different chain of events that might not have included that particular accident. Maybe he would have left the house a couple minutes later because of the shaving. Maybe he would have cut himself, and been driving in a different mood because of it. Maybe he would have thought he looked better after shaving, and been in a different mood because of it. The possibilities are endless. Change one thing, and you might change everything else.

However, I don't believe the accident had to happen. No pre-destined stuff. We can see an event, then follow the steps back, and see how the event was arrived upon. But that doesn't mean the event had to happen, and that all of the steps had to happen in order to reach the event.

(I know its going back a bit) but I want to point out, change works both ways. Every day we drive to work we are one change from ending up in that car accident. Our being alive is as much an "accident" as anything else.

Does the improbability of our existence point towards a divine intervention in our creation? Or is our life a form of equilibrium that we naturally fall into?

As for finding the meaning: Your life is an an opportunity to mean something to yourself. Discovering that meaning is part of the opportunity you have. But it can be anything you can imagine.

[rusmeister]

All your example proves is that if we want meaning, the individual invents it.

This is where I have a problem. You make a huge assumption by saying that people invent meaning. I might as well say that Newton "invented" his laws of physics because he wanted to find them. Sure, people can 'invent' a meaning for their life - their children or revenge or whatever - but the question is whether the meaning is true or not - whether there really is a purpose to our finding ourselves here. People trying to be rational generally want to find the truth, not just make something up. It's as foolish to consciously make up your own meaning as it is to make up your own laws of physics. Reality will prove you wrong sooner or later. The children may be killed in a car wreck. You achieve the object of your revenge and life becomes meaningless, etc... The search for truth is a serious one, and has engaged in by thousands of people smarter than you and me, and to casually dismiss all of that is quite as unreasonable as dismissing evidence for evolution out of hand. Some huge bodies of knowledge have been accumulated which systematically make sense of the universe via faith - something that can involve both reason and the emotions, but is exclusively neither. The major faiths represent these accumulations. They may be rightly or wrongly based, but it is very difficult to dismiss most of them as mere inventions.

[The Dreaming]

Once you get an actual idea of how vast the universe *really* is, it becomes harder and harder to believe that it's really all just for us. There are over a trillion stars in this galaxy. There are estimated to be as many galaxies in the universe are there are stars in this one. Thats stupid, retarded big. The amount of time we have existed in this universe? Absolutely insignificant on a cosmic timeline. Surely we aren't the only people who have asked these questions.

I don't see how that invalidates God. Any thinking, feeling creature must be asking the same questions and coming to similar conclusions. I think this because I believe in Truth. That doesn't make anything much easier, but it makes the universe at least possible to deal with. And while you may see a clockwork universe at the macroscopic level, what's happening underneath is anything but. There are some quantum uncertainty experiments I have read about that reveal a level of *arbitrary randomness* in the everyday workings of the universe that can boggle your (well mine at least) mind.

The one thing I am sure of is that no one knows everything, and probably never will. The existential conclusion is just as incomplete as the Christian fundamentalist solution. That doesn't mean that working to discern truth will not reward you.

[rusmeister]

Agreed.
Although it's a digression, I would say that CS Lewis offered some good thoughts on faith and aliens. His "Space Trilogy" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Trilogy presents the idea of we humans meeting races that had not Fallen and were not in need of the Redemption that (Christianity teaches) we require. (Some really funny dialog results at the end of the first book. Concepts that we take for granted that are a result of being Fallen make no sense to beings which do not sin.)

To sum it up, aliens would not change Christian doctrine, which is aimed at us. They could be Fallen and have the same form of Redemption, Fallen and have a different form of redemption, or unFallen and in no need of Redemption.

[Avatar]

My favourite Lewis books. I have them all in a single volume called The Cosmic Trilogy.

--A

[Loredoctor]

All your example proves is that if we want meaning, the individual invents it.

This is where I have a problem. You make a huge assumption by saying that people invent meaning.

No more of an assumption than you have that meaning exists.

I might as well say that Newton "invented" his laws of physics because he wanted to find them.

You might, but then you'd be missing my point. Your analogy is way off, my friend.

Sure, people can 'invent' a meaning for their life - their children or revenge or whatever - but the question is whether the meaning is true or not - whether there really is a purpose to our finding ourselves here.

Which is what I have been trying to argue.

People trying to be rational generally want to find the truth, not just make something up.

I'm not saying that everyone is making something up. You're taking my position and turning it into a strawman argument. I have issue with a tribal member pointing to a lightning strike and finding his meaning - that it's a sign his next child will be a virile (for example) - but no issue with a scientist finding the workings of a cell. But the latter does not require meaning.

It's as foolish to consciously make up your own meaning as it is to make up your own laws of physics. Reality will prove you wrong sooner or later. The children may be killed in a car wreck. You achieve the object of your revenge and life becomes meaningless, etc... The search for truth is a serious one, and has engaged in by thousands of people smarter than you and me, and to casually dismiss all of that is quite as unreasonable as dismissing evidence for evolution out of hand.

Only I never dismissed it. You're using strawman logic, rusmeister.

Some huge bodies of knowledge have been accumulated which systematically make sense of the universe via faith - something that can involve both reason and the emotions, but is exclusively neither. The major faiths represent these accumulations. They may be rightly or wrongly based, but it is very difficult to dismiss most of them as mere inventions.

Only to this day not one faith has come remotely close to finding tangible meaning.

But not offence, Rus, you have a tendency to derail debates into discussions about Christianity. This thread is not the case. Can we get back to the topic and not bring Christianity or C.S.Lewis into this?

[variol son]

I'm not sure whether or not a search for meaning has anything to do with Vain's original question. The way I read it, he was more interested in how small, seemingly insignificant events in our lives might have an effect on the big things. The significant life events, like death, or finding love, or losing it.

I don't believe that we have to do "everything in just the right sequence over an 80 to 90 year long period" in order to live to a ripe old age, because other people's actions often have just as much of an affect in our lives as our own. How many relatives of people killed by drunk (or speeding) drivers can attest to that?

One thing I do believe is that there's no point wishing I'd made that choice instead of this one. For all I know, it could have turned out far worse that way.

[Avatar]

Exactly. No regrets man.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

This is where I have a problem. You make a huge assumption by saying that people invent meaning. I might as well say that Newton "invented" his laws of physics because he wanted to find them. Sure, people can 'invent' a meaning for their life - their children or revenge or whatever - but the question is whether the meaning is true or not - whether there really is a purpose to our finding ourselves here. People trying to be rational generally want to find the truth, not just make something up. It's as foolish to consciously make up your own meaning as it is to make up your own laws of physics. Reality will prove you wrong sooner or later. The children may be killed in a car wreck. You achieve the object of your revenge and life becomes meaningless, etc... The search for truth is a serious one, and has engaged in by thousands of people smarter than you and me, and to casually dismiss all of that is quite as unreasonable as dismissing evidence for evolution out of hand. Some huge bodies of knowledge have been accumulated which systematically make sense of the universe via faith - something that can involve both reason and the emotions, but is exclusively neither. The major faiths represent these accumulations. They may be rightly or wrongly based, but it is very difficult to dismiss most of them as mere inventions.

I have heard or read about some faiths that are internally consistent, as well as beautiful. I've often mentioned them. They can be read in Conversations With God, Eknath Easwaran's introductions to his translations of the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, and the posts of Watch's own Furls Fire. Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity to the what's "beatiful," and even "internally consistent." But I think these three are amazing examples.

But that doesn't mean any of them are real. I have no personal experiences that suggest to me that any of them are, and there's no way to verify them. (Except, possibly, to die and see.) Frankly, the world would be a much happier, safer, loving place if we all believed as any of those three do. But it doesn't work like that. Beliefs of this nature are not arrived at through such means. Basing the kind of meaning you suggest exists on any of them is not how we work.

(And, obviously, embracing any of the other interpretations of the world's major religions that I've been exposed to, all of which I have problems with - from simple inconsistencies to major disagreements with the Godhead - is much more out of the question.)

[The Dreaming]

Exactly. No regrets man.

--A

Without regret how do you obtain wisdom? How can you fail to repeat mistakes if you refuse to recognize some of your actions *as* mistakes?

And don't give me none of that "there are no mistakes" crap!