So, I'm a dork and write notepad notes on topics such as this when I find myself with too much time on my hands. Discussions regarding the purpose of life invariably end up tackling religion at some point, and so here's my offering, a note-to-self that first gets religion out of the way, and then goes on to outline my own secular spirituality (yes, such a spirituality is possible, you bigot, you :P)

My Agnosticism/Atheism/Humanism

I am not by any means a fundamentalist Atheist. I consider myself an agnostic, with strong emotional/probabalistic leanings toward atheism.

And now the arguments:

Psychology
Freud - Future of an Illusion:
Religion as an illusion - "what is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes." Religion addresses common human wishes including immortality for the self as well as for loved ones, ultimate justice, and a clear, definite moral compass to live and make choices by. However, "Illusions need not necessarily be false." One might have the illusion that he will win the lottery. This is unlikely, but not impossible. The fact that it is grounded in his wishes is what makes it an illusion.

Science
-There is no evidence that points to the existence of a God, or metaphysical realms outside of the physical, material world.

-The burden of proof lies with those who wish to prove the existence of a deity or metaphysical realm outside of the physical, material world, not with the skeptics.

-The inability to disprove the existence of God or a metaphysical realm outside of the physical, material world does not prove the existence of either. I cannot disprove the proposition that a celestial teapot is orbiting the earth; it does not follow that there necessarily is a celestial teapot orbiting the earth.

-That there is no evidence that points to the existence of a God, or metaphysical realms outside of the physical, material world, and because the inability to disprove the existence of either, these questions lie far outside the current purview of Science. For it to enter into scientific discourse, evidence would have to be presented that at least suggested the supernatural. Such evidence has yet to be discovered.

-Neuroscience has encountered no reason to posit a source of the "self" outside of the brain, which supports the conception of humans as complex biological machines.

-The "Big Bang" hypothesis conceives the universe without a temporal "beginning" - time is a dimension that was created along with space by the big bang; a dense singularity was expanded into what we now know (hardly) as the vast universe, and everything that constitutes it.

Philosophy
-The idea that the universe was created out of nothing (which is not a current scientific hypothesis) is no more absurd than the notion of a God-creator, who itself must have been created from nothing.

-The idea that the universe, the totality of existence, was never created, but has gone through changes, avoids the need posit creation ex-nihlo. The first hypothesis at least allows the promise of empirical evidence; the metaphysics of the latter leaves the door closed for further investigation--it is a proposition that is unprovable.

History
-History shows us the movement from "God did it" to rational explanation, as well as the resistance this movement has faced. This trend does not, by any means, disprove religious claims. It does, however, speak to the nature and end of human beliefs. Surely, before the awareness of a rational explanation, it is understandable that humans hypothesized supernatural explanations. However, certain people and groups throughout history have had vested interests in maintaining these explanations, even in the face of undeniable refutation for reasons of power and comfort.

Conclusion
-Religious claims cannot be proven, nor disproved, based on current evidence (they are unfalsifiable).

-Religion is undeniably an illusion, in the Freudian sense--humans have a psychological interest in believing its claims. When this is considered alongside the fact that there is no evidence to substantiate religious claims, the only explanation left for religion's existence at all is that of the wishful thinking of humans. ~This STILL does NOT disprove religion!~

-With the scientific method, there at least exists the possibility of testable, provable conclusions so complete that no room is left for unprovable supernatural/metaphysical speculation.

-I do not despair at any of these conclusions. My life remains meaningful, as its meaning never depended upon anything outside of my own subjectivity (which is a process of the brain). I do not require that values be given to me--I discover them myself, and frequently reevaluate them. I do find that as a sentient being, I feel it most beneficial to regard all other sentient beings as just that--sentient beings, each with its own universe of subjectivity. I find myself constantly meditating on language and art, as these are the only bridges that human subjectivities can utilize, and I want to build the most friendly, accessible bridges possible--which is not to say that the content they lead to is necessarily of the same temperament. It is to say, that I want communication to be as full, easy, and efficient as possible.

-In short, I believe in Love. Not some foggy, mystical Love. But Love that is based in the reality of sentient beings that have the capacity to communicate their subjectivities, however crudely. Here, science can only investigate the forms love takes (i.e. semiotics)--Language and art are merely pointers, pointers that point to inner, subjective, psychological experience. My one faith is that there are universals that stem from the human condition, universals that stem from the fact that we are all organizations that consist of the same types of materials (carbon, water, etc.) in extremely similar manners (by our shared DNA), dealing with shared existential facts (mortality, environment, culture, etc.).

-Love, as this connectedness, understanding and empathy, provides the end toward which one should rationally guide his actions. One "in love" with humanity is very unlikely to hurt anyone intentionally. One will naturally want to expand his understanding of the way things work in order to be more capable of manipulating the cold, indifferent material universe so that it might be more pleasant for humans--the self and others alike. One "in love" is able to see how mystifications are not usually benign, and will thus avoid them.

At least that's how I see it...

Awesome Post.

I don't really have anything to add, but I was wondering about the evolution of Humankind. I'm 52, and I've seen what I perceive to be a huge change in culture and what's important to different cultures. Many of these changes are caused by technology, and the fact that we are all sharing this site, should verify that for most people. With changes in people's lives come changes in almost everything, but I would think personal psychology is near the top.

I was wondering if there's anyway to "prove" where love came from, why it's important (if you believe in it), and how it's evolving as we continue to head into the future. I also want to know if the desire to love and be loved is connected to the desire to hate and be hated. If it's just from the brain, is it from the same part of the brain? If so, how does one "pick and choose" how to believe and behave? Why would a "normal person" choose love over hate?

I'm really confused as to why this is not obvious to everyone. The worst, lamest argument anyone can make against religion is that "it cannot be proven". Of course it cannot be proven. If religion, say the existence of God, could be proven, then life itself would be of no relevance whatsoever. What would be the point of human life if we knew exactly what to do? Religion is a concept based on FAITH. Yes, faith, which is a belief in something with no scientific evidence. Well no shit. If human technology could prove the existence of God, he would obviously not be much of one. If you live your life by the scientific method, you are one sad fellow. There are many truths in the world that science discounts, not because they are wrong, but because the scientific method cannot prove them. A strict system designed for concrete evidence.

If there was no such thing as God, it is almost a certainty people would still believe in Him. If there is a such thing as God, he still would not be detected merely by human materialism such as science, and His existence would still rely on faith. The whole fucking doctrine of theology is based on faith! The Bible speaks of FAITH as the key to heaven. Do you not realize how ignorant you are being with these statements? If God exists, then he is clearly much bigger than what any of our minds can comprehend.

All in all, to me, there is way too much in the world that is unexplainable. The best way to approach this argument is to not go at it with an elitist, self-serving display of assertions. There is only one solid truth when it comes to this topic, and it is that nobody knows the truth. If there really is no God, well, life would seem fairly pointless. I mean even if there is no God I can see why people would be religious. If the cumulation of your life results in dirt in the ground, then who really cares. Whatever "affect" you had on the world will not matter. It just won't. Use your imagination. Dirt in the fucking ground. Of course you cannot disprove religion, this should be obvious. A carefully organized display of "facts" in regards to religion is quite lame and ridiculous. The existence of God cannot be proven, but science has no alternative. Science has no real "evidence" or proof as to how the world came about. Just really long-shot theories like the "Big Bang" theory. Personally, I find it hard to imagine the "beginning" of the world without some omnipresent force that the human brain cannot understand. Atheism and religion cannot possibly compete because neither will either win. I think a lot of atheists (like this whole Dawkinsy atheist movement nowadays) feel so desperate to assert their views on others because of their own insecurities. Who wouldn't be insecure as an atheist? I mean, if you are wrong you will burn for eternity. If a Christian is wrong, nobody will be there to say "I told you so". So maybe atheists feel the need to make up for it now. So what proof does science have against religion? None, and if it had proof it still would not prove anything, because no "Almight Creator" would be that simple. Even the theory of evolution (which if you've read anything by evolutionists can be absolutely ridiculous no matter what you believe) could merely be the answer to "How" and not the "Why". There is no reason why science and religion cannot co-exist. If I was an atheist I'd probably feel desperate to piss all over other peoples beliefs as well. Religious people may try to "convert" others, or "save" them. No matter what you believe, this can only be regarded as a fairly noble effort. However, many Christians that I meet nowadays use their religion as a scapegoat for being horribly awful people. That says nothing for Christianity and more for the person involved. There are a lot of really stupid, fanatical Christians or members of other religious groups that make me almost understand the atheists point of view. However, this argument cannot be won or proven by anyone's intelligence or behaviour. I don't believe anything is as cut and dry as people make it out to be. I believe in God, which to some of you, may make me seem like a nutcase and discount my whole argument. I think that God looks into your "soul" and sees what kind of person you truly are, and labels will fall by the wayside.

quote:

Originally posted by Drink Coca-Cola!:
Who wouldn't be insecure as an atheist? I mean, if you are wrong you will burn for eternity. If a Christian is wrong, nobody will be there to say "I told you so".

Unless one of the many religions that aren't Christianity happen to be right.

I have plenty of things I feel insecure about. Honestly, atheism isn't one of them. I would feel far less secure if I pretended to believe in something that makes no sense to me. I suspect most atheists feel the same way. If it makes you feel any better though, you can continue projecting.

Somebody remind me why I ever log on late at night when I've been drinking.

quote:

I would feel far less secure if I pretended to believe in something that makes no sense to me. I suspect most atheists feel the same way.

Good point, Major. I'm not suggesting that everyone who's Christian is pretending, but I've honestly heard people say they were Christian, to some degree, "just in case". I'm not joking. I'm kinda thinking "so God is omniscient and all-knowing, but he's somehow going to miss that you only went to church 'just in case'? Riiiight."

As far as this religion conversation goes, shouldn't it be in the "Religion" thread? Granted, the whole "Purpose of life" is going to tie in with religion quite a bit, but let's try to stay a bit on topic.

The purpose of life is a difficult thing to explain. I tend to look at it in terms of what Dork was suggesting. All of the things I do have an effect on people in some way or another. Many of those effects I will never know, but they still exist anyway. My hope is that these effects are mostly positive. My goals are happiness, achievement, love, and genuinely trying to do right by as many people as possible. If I do wrong someone, than I never underestimate the power of an apology. In the case that there is an after life, I suspect that God would pay me regard for that. If not, than I reckon I I'd feel comfortable telling him to piss off.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sans_success,

Drink Coca-Cola!:

It cannot be proven, and it cannot be disproved, yes.

But I was simply stating that in the case of the major organized religions, it seems obvious to me that they're man-made.

I've stated quite clearly that I'm an agnostic. I just think the probabilities of a lack of a deity or of a Spinoza's "God" being true are radically higher than that of any of the major monotheistic religions. I think that's fair.

And let's lay off the attacks...the unnecessary vitriol on both sides of this debate makes me ill. Can we have a civil debate? I don't just assume that all people of faith are insecure! In fact, I'm open to the idea that they've had transformational spiritual experiences that necessarily lead to their beliefs, and that I just might have not had one yet. But until then, my beliefs follow from what I have experienced, and from what I do know.

My knowledge of history and human psychology makes me extremely skeptical. And yes, I manage to live! I actually cherish the idea of being an ephemeral organizational structure of matter, and nothing more! Imagine that!

I also wonder why I bother after a late night of boozing.

"A night of boozing" tends to bring out the more thoughtful comments of true boozehounds. I liked the most recent additions to the thread because they can ALL be construed as true, but the only one I want to disagree with is the idea that "if you are wrong, you will burn for eternity". That's as crappy BS a statement as many of the "non-believers" proffer as utter truth that religion is entirely piss-poor ridiculous. Everybody needs their own crutch. I just wouldn't be too smug in supporting my own versus someone else's.

Whatever. Not one of you addressed the point of my argument. You merely took a phrasing of words I used and construed it to mean something I did not. My point was never about Christianity, it was an example. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. I thought you would catch on to that. And my comment on insecurity was not referring to any one in particular. That means you don't need to defend yourself and explain why you are not insecure and are an atheist blah blah. I wasn't issuing anything as truth, I was suggesting a reason as to why certain people feel the need to force their beliefs on others. If you don't believe in anything, then what the hell do you care? So if it makes you feel any better MajorNougat, you can continue taking simple statements literally and then defending yourself.

Anyone who says they believe anything "just in case" etc. obviously doesn't believe. I mean, I really have no idea what you are driving at. My previous post specified the superficiality of labels. A lot of supposed "Christians" would "burn in hell", and I suspect "good" people in generally would go to "heaven". Which brings me to my next defense. The whole "burn in hell" that you quoted, was, well, meant to be quoted. I guess I missed that. I was just going with a defaulted jurisdiction so to speak. I'm sorry if I offended you darling.

JohnnhyNot to Scale I am sorry if I offended you. You seem to dabble in critical thinking, unlike many people. I never assumed that all people not of faith are insecure. That would be a preposterous statement. I would argue against myself if I interpreted myself that way. I also have a certain degree of knowledge in human psychology. That is why I stated that people were going to believe in God anyways and so forth. As for your last statement, WOW YOU MANAGE TO LIVE GOOD FOR YOUUUU!!!! That is all for defending myself against things I didn't say or mean, perhaps I was not clear. My main point is that no one can ever no either way, so there is no point in flaunting your beliefs in other peoples face. Man, I would make an awful celebrity

and as for staying on topic. The purpose of life is directly intertwined with the possible existence of God, or not God. I mean life in the big picture. Existence and what it means. Life could have a different meaning for any given person on any day. But in the context of life as a whole, not relying on any one persons existence, how is that off topic? Should we discuss slurpees?

quote:

Originally posted by Drink Coca-Cola!:
And my comment on insecurity was not referring to any one in particular. That means you don't need to defend yourself and explain why you are not insecure and are an atheist blah blah. I wasn't issuing anything as truth, I was suggesting a reason as to why certain people feel the need to force their beliefs on others. If you don't believe in anything, then what the hell do you care? So if it makes you feel any better MajorNougat, you can continue taking simple statements literally and then defending yourself.

I know you weren't calling me or any other specific person insecure. I was merely using the only example* I'm certain of(me) to help me refute a generalization you suggested about atheists. No offense intended, but I think your hypothesis about the more militant atheists was wrong. I just don't think they try to convince people they're right out of insecurity; it's because they're convinced themselves that they're right. When you think you're right, there's a natural(often annoying and pointless) tendency to get into debates about it and to convince other people. It's a main reason we're having this discussion right now.

Yes, I only addressed a portion of your post, but it was the portion of your post that I felt the most strongly about. Is that unreasonable?


*Yes, I understand that one example is simply anecdotal evidence. I still thought my own experiences were relevant to the point.

That's cool man. It is one thing to think you are right. However, I can't stand people who are convinced they are right, from both the religious and atheist perspective. There simply is no way of knowing, the meaning of life will always be a mystery. Anyways, it would seem unlikely this discussion goes anywhere else. I really just want to talk about music anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by Drink Coca-Cola!:
and as for staying on topic. The purpose of life is directly intertwined with the possible existence of God, or not God. I mean life in the big picture.

Haha...Meh...for me, I would never be able to accept that the existence of every living being is directly tied to this "God" person. Aside from various issues including free will, the variety of different religions created (some of which I like more than others), the plausibility that religion was invented by humans thousands of years ago being influenced possibly by the consumption of psychedelic drugs and my ability to argue for an imaginary teapot or a Flying Spaghetti Monster just as vehemently and frustratingly as some argue for religion. (That's a long sentence )

My main problem is that if "God" doesn't exist, then life has no meaning at all and those going to church twice a week are losing over 100 days of their year to worship an imaginary being when they could be doing some real benefits to society or enjoying their life. Which should be the 'true meaning of life' don't worry about whether or not this 'Thing," this omniscient, omnipresent, personal "God" that is watching all of us and may or may not serve us with personal 'miracles' (which serious fucks up the concept of fate) and that doesn't care enough about his creation to stop wars, genocide, starvation, or even give us any clue that "He" exists. Even more, "He" apparently isn't even generous enough to give those unfortunate billions that didn't choose the "Right" religion.

As far as the meaning of life, on the grand scale, I don't think it has one. On a personal level, we should all try to enjoy our lives and have an effect on our environment and our fellow Homo Sapiens.


Now Playing: "Insane in the Brain" Richard Cheese & Lounge Against the Machine

Well, I highly doubt you could vehemently argue for a flying spaghetti monster, you'd probably just use the generic, logic-deprived arguments that too many people seem to use when regarding religion, both for and against. I really can't disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. Wow! I never thought of it like that! It is obvious to me then that a flying spaghetti monster must exist because I cannot disprove it. Is that what you are driving at? That is such a lame way of going at this discussion, you are just trying to make one side sound silly. Well, that's fine. I guess you believe that we all started out as fish that had retarded fish frog babies, that crawled out of the ocean with mutant fish hands, and then had butt sex with a squirrel and made a retard frog squirrel which then had a retard baby which was a monkey fish frog, and the monkey fish frog had butt sex with another monkey which had a retard baby which screwed a monkey and that made us. The retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish squirrel. You can make anything sound silly, which Trey Parker wonderfully demonstrates all the time. Life is far too complex and misunderstood to have an answer that will not sound silly to some people. Any explanation as to how we came about will sound silly. The universe just "happened" right?

Your "main" problem is people going to church an hour a week to become "better" people are wasting time? An hour a week? Are you for real? Consider how much time people waste on a daily basis! Watching television, getting drunk, doing nothing at all. Who says that this ritual is not part of their enjoying life? Tht is honestly the weakest argument I have ever heard in this subject. And as far as God not giving us a "hint" as to his existence, that should be obvious. As I stated earlier, no "Almighty creator" could be that simple. If we knew of the existence of God life would be irrelevant. I think there are hints of God if you look for them, but that is another discussion. Terrible things happen on Earth all the time. That means God can't exist right? Another weak argument. Earth is not meant to be "heaven". If God exists then good people who die would be going to a better place. And as far as billions not choosing the "right" religion, how do you know? Have you spoken to God? Did he tell you this? Obviously not. I'm pretty sure life has some kind of meaning. If you use your imagination, this complex series of events and cellular function we call life would seem a wild coincidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Drink Coca-Cola!:
I mean even if there is no God I can see why people would be religious. If the cumulation of your life results in dirt in the ground, then who really cares. Whatever "affect" you had on the world will not matter. It just won't. Use your imagination. Dirt in the fucking ground.

Nope.

The human brain is an extraordinarily complex electro-chemical reaction. Every cognition, every new bit of data, alters the way in which our brains respond. Maybe it's just one different neurochemical; maybe a stray neuron hesitating a mere moment, but even these dots on phosphate have changed everyone who has read them.

Who knows what we might have been if that neuron hadn't fired at all?

Also, you're upstaging me. I'm used to being the nihilistic, assclown drama-queen around here.

Well I am aware of that doll, but all any one person will ever know is their own "world". Once that "world" is gone, so are you. You will have an affect on the world, of course, but it will not matter in your own "world", if your existence is to be halted in such a way. Also, I don't understand how nihilism and "assclown drama-queen" go together, but I suppose I am both anyways. So do the Oz I tell you do the Oz yeah yeah

"Doll"?

Fuck me hard, Captain 'Tard.

I know that USA are religious, that it's part of your culture, but why do we always have to talk about a God when we discuss about "Purpose of life"? The way we have to live on Earth is the same for atheists and for religious people: our Duty is to be happy. Making a world that makes people happy is the way we must live on Earth. If you dont believe in God but you lived a happy life, then you accomplished the purpose of life. You "enjoy the ride" like Dork said. If you believe in God, you accomplished the purpose of life, because being happy means that you make happy actions for yourself and for the others, and happy actions mean that you help yourself and people, so you have your place in paradise. What is the purpose of life? We are not here to accomplish something. Nobody told us that we must act specifically, not even God. We should try to accomplish something great while we are alive.

quote:

Originally posted by eggtweedyegg:
why do we always have to talk about a God when we discuss about "Purpose of life"?

The problem is the question casts too much of a wide net. When you’re asking “what is the purpose of life?” you have to be more specific, are you asking “what is the purpose of all existence?” or “what is the purpose of existing as an individual?”

The question, “what is the purpose of all existence?” will obviously provoke religious discussion, because you’re questioning if there is some kind of overall plan or goal behind all existence which would of course suggest that some “god” like entity created it for a reason, and to assume anything otherwise when asking this question would automaticly give you the answer that there is no purpose and that all existence is random.

When it comes to the question of: “what is the purpose of existing as an individual?” Either way, I think it’s irrelevant whether someone is a believer or not, unless the religion you believe in says that you will continue to be reborn the exact same way in the exact same time in the exact same reality, over and over, then the existence of your current consciousness is a unique one off occurrence, which you should obviously enjoy to the fullest possible extent.

I don’t believe there is some over all purpose, I believe it’s up to humans as individuals to create and find their own purpose to exist and be happy, no matter how trivial those purposes may seem.

Honestly! Does no one on this thread other than me (and mark) have children?

The purpose of life is its generation and continuation. The preservation and immortality of genes. Life is its own purpose.

The rest (art, love, culture, music, civilization, etc) is window dressing.