"We are the leaders of this new religion. We have faith that people connected can create a new world. Each one of us is a creator but together we are The Creator."
It all sounds lovely until the universe turns into a cold, dead cinder.
Seriously, making stuff is beautiful, and helping people is beautiful, but those don't add up to transcendent beings. If everything about us, right down to our deepest desires, is fundamentally just the motion of atoms, when the universe ends, it might has well have never happened.
I am a Christian, so I'm biased here#, but it seems to me that non-religious people keep trying to simultaneously claim that the universe is merely a semi-random collection of atoms and energy, AND that we can find transcendent meaning in it. You can't have it both ways.
#Then again, I think it's impossible NOT to be biased about a question like the meaning of life. We all want some particular thing to be true.
It's interesting that you put all the focus on "transcendent beings". Although that's certainly understandable given you believe that's the entire point of our existence.
For those of us who don't believe there is some transcendent being out there waiting to either embrace us or condemn us to eternal suffering in the afterlife, this is all we've got. We don't have faith that our good deeds and beliefs will rewarded or punished. We don't have faith that there is some larger purpose to life than what actually happens on this planet.
Instead, we try to build societies so that we can place faith in people, and ideas. Is that goal any less noble because the universe will at one point, billions of years in the future, turn into a cold, dead cinder?
Nobody, except those who commit great harm, will be remembered even 100 years from now. Some people might know the name Bill Gates in 2111, but most people will have forgotten what he actually accomplished, just as most of our generation has forgotten what Rockefeller, or Carnegie, or Vanderbilt did. Does that make their contributions to society any less important or righteous?
For us nonbelievers, transcendence isn't about becoming one with "god". It's about becoming one with the ideas and values we hold.
The fact that the universe is a semi-random collection of atoms and energy is EXACTLY the meaning I find in all of this. Life--particularly human life--is so damn beautiful and rare that every single moment here needs to be appreciated. Trying to live your life a certain way in the hopes of gaining some sort of non-existent afterlife utopia shows a complete lack of appreciation for your own time here among the living.
"Needs" to be appreciated why? If appreciation is merely brain chemistry, it's no different from hunger or hate, none of which have any moral value at all, because there is none to be had. Murder and charity and the blowing of the wind: all are meaningless accidents in a purely material universe.
And your description of an afterlife is not at all how I think of it; it sounds quite mercenary. It's more like "spend your time painting as if someone will see it, not as if you will burn it immediately upon finishing."
Ah, so it comes down to this: morality. As if human beings themselves aren't inherently good enough to figure things out for ourselves. Instead we need a mythical super-being to tell us what is right or wrong. This is where a religion based on the appreciation of life conflicts with a religion based on controlling others via morality.
I have no problem if you want to believe that there is a super-being in the sky or that we are all made of stars or that there is some inherent order to the universe and life that we do not yet understand. But don't pretend that you are right and others are wrong. Your version of a God with his omnipotent powers and everlasting love has just as much cause to communicate with me personally as he does with you or the Pope or your preacher. No one can tell me that they know better than I do what lies beyond this life.
Why do we have to keep our eyes closed to the beauty of life here on earth for it to have "meaning"? Life is awesome, devastating, amazing, heartbreaking, and wonder-filled. Every moment is a gift. Knowing that one day it will all come to an end makes it all the more beautiful for me.
I'm not trying to force you to believe anything. I'm merely observing that meaning exists in minds. If you believe that all minds will cease to exist, you must believe that all meaning will cease to exist.
I'm merely observing that meaning exists in minds. If you believe that all minds will cease to exist, you must believe that all meaning will cease to exist.
I can't speak for the parent post, but personally I'm fine with that. All meaning, and indeed morality, exists in minds. Which is why it's so incredibly important to me that we not squander it while it does exist in the name of something that doesn't.
As your mind ceases to exist, the effect of your existence is not lost. Meaning does not cease to exist after I die. I can care about the world, human beings and life beyond my own life without believing in one of the many thousand-year-old religions. In choosing to appreciate and enjoy my life as much as possible right now, I honor all those who come after me. I am part of that future. My appreciation for life inspires me to contribute as meaningfully as possible.
There's a Straaaaaw Maaaaan [1]
waiting in the sky;
He'd like to come and meet us,
but he thinks he'll blow our minds
Seriously, not believing in god doesn't mean you don't acknowledge your own subjectivity and your feelings.
Jesus was probably the first to emphasize how much the humans are social beings, that they need one another, and that there's actually a lot to enjoy and to win by being nice towards each others.
Some biblical teachings are remarkably insightful, but you don't need the full package to make sense out of it.
BTW, assuming that god (whatever it is) is transcendent, by definition, it is impossible to conceive it. As a consequence any attempt at conceptualizing it is doomed to fail. You're only ever relating to your flawed mental representation of it. It can provide wonderful experiences, but you can get similar ones in totally different settings [2].
> "Jesus was probably the first to emphasize how much the humans are social beings, that they need one another, and that there's actually a lot to enjoy and to win by being nice towards each others."
That first bit is a rather bold claim in the face of Confucius.
I'm not sure what you mean by semi-random, could you explain further? As a non-religious person myself I drop the 'semi-' and just go with utterly random.
I'm also not sure why you think we can't have it both ways. Take chess for example. There's a board, there's rules, and it plays. However ask any serious player about the game, and you'll discover very quickly that there is far more to the game then just the board and how the pieces move.
Why can't the same principle be applied to our universe, where the board is what we perceive and the rules physics?
"There's a board, there's rules, and it plays. However ask any serious player about the game, and you'll discover very quickly that there is far more to the game then just the board and how the pieces move."
If by "far more", you mean "following these rules can result in any one of a large combination of outcomes, and at any given point it's nearly impossible to keep them all in your head", I agree.
If you're talking about the thrill of it, that's external to the game: it's human feelings and human interactions. Which is exactly what a materialistic view of the universe would dismiss as illusory.
Materialistic negationism is the only coherent position, since there is only material. Everything else is just as religious as the religions that atheists bash.
What about your own subjectivity? How would you explain the difference between red and blue to a blind man, or what it feels like to fall in love to a robot without the appropriate subjective apparatus (or even to someone who never did (yes, it exists))?
Which is exactly what a materialistic view of the universe would dismiss as illusory.
Huh? Apply your same logic, "following these rules can result in any one of a large combination of outcomes." Bingo, you have thinking, feeling creatures. Nothing has been dismissed.
"It all sounds lovely until the universe turns into a cold, dead cinder."
You are assuming heat death is inevitable, however this may not be the case, in fact if it is possible to harness Zero Point energy as energy and matter are just two sides of the same coin it will be possible for us to avoid heat death, that would certainly be a Revelation and humanity would be the Saviour.
I was under the impression that physicists still don't know what the fate of the universe is. It could expand into cold oblivion or contract back into a hot singularity or balance out in stasis. Doesn't it depend on the topology of the universe? Isn't that still 'up in the air'? (punny)
...it seems to me that non-religious people keep trying to simultaneously claim that the universe is merely a semi-random collection of atoms and energy, AND that we can find transcendent meaning in it. You can't have it both ways.
Yes, yes I can. As a human I can find meaning in literally anything. By no means is this any more or less silly then walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.
I mean that ascribing meaning to have metaphysical, supernatural, transcendental effects that exist outside of one's mind would be counter to an atheist worldview.
I don't mean to paint all atheists with one brush, I'm just trying to explain (one possible) reason for why you can't have it both ways:
...it seems to me that non-religious people keep trying to simultaneously claim that the universe is merely a semi-random collection of atoms and energy, AND that we can find transcendent meaning in it.
So I interpreted that as the original non-atheist person meaning transcendental as metaphysical or supernatural in his statement.
For those of you who can't watch it or want a synopsis:
It's an inspiring talk about a guy who has dealt with multiple extreme health issues, like cancer and a lung transplant, and how people--connected by the internet--made it possible for him to get the help he needed to live. He's not saying that he worships the internet, rather that communication and understanding other people is what is best in all of us. In this sense, the internet is his religion because it allows him to have faith in the goodness of the world.
I think he's pretty right on. One can argue that currently the connection between human beings made possible by the internet is _not_ godlike, but if you extrapolate this kind of connection to its endpoint - telepathy and humankind as an organism, you start to get something very godlike by today's standards. If you still don't agree with him then we're arguing about the definition of god, which is a silly thing to argue about.
Kept me a the Rand quote. Do you actually dislike the quote or just Rand in general?
If you disliked the quote, I would like to know what you disagreed with.
If the latter, I would have to say that ignoring everything someone has ever said just because you disagree with them on some points is attacking the person, not the idea. Just because I disagree with Hitler's actions doesn't mean I ignore everything he ever said.
1. On the surface, it's false -- or else the blind cannot create. Rand has few good words for people who are not ISO humans. This is not as clear in Atlas Shrugged, but is more evident in her non-fiction, and I disapprove of it.
2. Quoting Rand signals, if not acceptance, approval for her general thesis. It is a good thesis in so far as it romanticizes (in her technical sense of the word, see _The Romantic Manifesto_) the ability of humans to produce great things. It is a bad thesis in so far as it blames those who cannot produce great things -- for any reason -- for "enslaving" those of the previous class.
The internet's a third level of "human organism," not a deity. The first two levels being individuals, and traditionally organized bodies with leaders.
his slightly nervous, ever-so-geeky, sensibility...
I would love for that sentence to be explained. The speaker took the stage and spoke with confidence. I saw no signs of nervousness. As for geeky, I guess you mean he was skinny, wearing a rumpled shirt and glasses? Sensibility? You mean he looked sensitive, or reasonable?
I dunno, it just seems like a whole lot of snap judgment of a guy and some words that seem to have just been assembled at random because it sounded cool.
It all sounds lovely until the universe turns into a cold, dead cinder.
Seriously, making stuff is beautiful, and helping people is beautiful, but those don't add up to transcendent beings. If everything about us, right down to our deepest desires, is fundamentally just the motion of atoms, when the universe ends, it might has well have never happened.
I am a Christian, so I'm biased here#, but it seems to me that non-religious people keep trying to simultaneously claim that the universe is merely a semi-random collection of atoms and energy, AND that we can find transcendent meaning in it. You can't have it both ways.
#Then again, I think it's impossible NOT to be biased about a question like the meaning of life. We all want some particular thing to be true.