- I was planning to just sit back and read these posts, but I'm going to pick a nit here: "If you don't believe in God you have to believe that no one designed you, no one created you for a purpose, you have o purpose, you weren't born for a reason, you are nothing than an organism, soulless, and devoid o any special reason for being. When you die, you die that's it no one cares no one remembers you and it wont matter one whit that you ever lived. This is off base, I think. Our lives may not have meaning to the Universe, or to something outside of ourselves, but they have meaning to us and to each other. I could make the argument that our lives as little pieces of the Universe looking back at itself are meaningful in the kind of "grand scheme" you're describing, but really I'm not concerned with whether or not my life has an everlasting, universal meaning; it is enough that it has a human meaning. I don't see why meaning, for human beings, needs to be any bigger than that. In fact, it seems to me that we often are at our worst when we make our human meaning subservient to some larger ideal; it is only by appealing to some ideal "bigger" than our humanity (be it religion, politics, nationalism or whatever)that we are able to overcome that humanity and behave inhumanely. (This comes in the context of a discussion I've been having elsewhere about ethics, and our conversation at CADRE so my apologies if it's tangential to what your trying to accomplish here, but this point seemed relevant.)
- 12:20 PM
-
J.L. Hinman said... - I was planning to just sit back and read these posts, but I'm going to pick a nit here: "If you don't believe in God you have to believe that no one designed you, no one created you for a purpose, you have o purpose, you weren't born for a reason, you are nothing than an organism, soulless, and devoid o any special reason for being. When you die, you die that's it no one cares no one remembers you and it wont matter one whit that you ever lived. This is off base, I think. Our lives may not have meaning to the Universe, or to something outside of ourselves, but they have meaning to us and to each other. I covered that. actually I was exaggerating a big here, or at least putting a spin in an attempt to get the reader to feel the problem and to understand the stakes. But I agree we can always find some sort of meaning on a private level. Unbelief is no reason to despair or go off the deep end. Back in the 60's when Sartre was popular among skeptics ministers would try and really pour it on in that way, to show the problems with existentialism. They would paint it as the great evil of the age, utter despair and so on. I don't believe in scaring people into faith or in depressing them into faith. But these problems were real for me. It was never enough for me to have private relative meaning, I wanted full blown higher meaning. Sartre was a bit serious and deal with the seedy side of human nature, he was raised by The Schweitzers, German grandparents and he was the cousin of Albert Schweitzer. So he took it all has great gravity. Camus was the son of a peasant from north Africa, the sun the beach, he was a party guy. he dealt with the seedy side but ws much more optimistic. I could make the argument that our lives as little pieces of the Universe looking back at itself are meaningful in the kind of "grand scheme" you're describing, but really I'm not concerned with whether or not my life has an everlasting, universal meaning; it is enough that it has a human meaning. I don't see why meaning, for human beings, needs to be any bigger than that. I think I demonstrated the need for it. The civil rights workers who were murdered, don't you think they probably would hope I'm right in the last moments of their lives? the universe looking back on itself that is a good point. What you are missing is that's really not that far from waht I'm saying. The universe can't look, or think or feel. It doesn't recogize anything, or if it does, that's God. Consciousness is a basic property of nature, so so is the consciousness of the universe? In fact, it seems to me that we often are at our worst when we make our human meaning subservient to some larger ideal; it is only by appealing to some ideal "bigger" than our humanity (be it religion, politics, nationalism or whatever)that we are able to overcome that humanity and behave inhumanely. you can't prove that. there are no examples of that. I've coverd that that's what I was talking about when I spoke of pull heaven down and make a crystal night. Crystal night was the begining of persecution of the Jews, when the borown shirts went around breaking windows. It's when we identity's our own temporal power with the ultimate that we make that mistake. But that's covered in another theme. I did cover it in the original. (This comes in the context of a discussion I've been having elsewhere about ethics, and our conversation at CADRE so my apologies if it's tangential to what your trying to accomplish here, but this point seemed relevant.)
- 1:10 PM
-
A Hermit said...
- "I think I demonstrated the need for it. The civil rights workers who were murdered, don't you think they probably would hope I'm right in the last moments of their lives?" I imagine they would have hoped that their sacrifice had done some good in the world; but that's still meaning in a human context. "the universe looking back on itself that is a good point. What you are missing is that's really not that far from waht I'm saying." I know, that's why I put it in there; I really do understand what you're saying, you see...;-) "The universe can't look, or think or feel. It doesn't recogize anything, or if it does, that's God." I'd say when the universe does recognize anything that's us. There's no point, it seems to me, in thinking about what the universe/God/Being/spirit or any of the other "bigger somethings" we might imagine want or think or feel or mean. Even as "bits of the universe looking at itself" we experience the world as human beings, and the only meanings that can have any consequence for human beings are human meanings.
- 2:21 PM
-
J.L. Hinman said... - ME:I think I demonstrated the need for it. The civil rights workers who were murdered, don't you think they probably would hope I'm right in the last moments of their lives?" I imagine they would have hoped that their sacrifice had done some good in the world; but that's still meaning in a human context. they could die knowing that if no one saw it or knew, God knew. ME:"the universe looking back on itself that is a good point. What you are missing is that's really not that far from waht I'm saying." I know, that's why I put it in there; I really do understand what you're saying, you see...;-) then you must agree? (I'm kidding) ;-) Me:"The universe can't look, or think or feel. It doesn't recogize anything, or if it does, that's God." I'd say when the universe does recognize anything that's us. so we are back to private local relative meaning. There's no point, it seems to me, in thinking about what the universe/God/Being/spirit or any of the other "bigger somethings" we might imagine want or think or feel or mean. Even as "bits of the universe looking at itself" we experience the world as human beings, and the only meanings that can have any consequence for human beings are human meanings. so for some reason I don't understand you would rather just not recognize universal meaning because you don't like it, or you can't accept a will greater than your own, or whatever. But that's just you matter of taste. That doesn't answer the argument logically.
- 6:19 PM
-
J.L. Hinman said... - One thing people are missing in the comments so far is that the studies I talk about (300-400 studies on the value of religious experience nd participation) a huge portion of them show people do better when they have a sense of meaning and purpose. The higher the sense of meaning less directed just to their personal needs but to a greater sense of the universe, the better they do. I quoted Mohan referring to some of hose studies. He has other quotes too that back that up.
- 7:29 AM
-
A Hermit said... - "so for some reason I don't understand you would rather just not recognize universal meaning because you don't like it, or you can't accept a will greater than your own, or whatever. But that's just you matter of taste. That doesn't answer the argument logically." My answer to the argument is that as human beings we experience the world in a human context. There are two points to be made from that observation; any meaning we find is human meaning (because it is we who experience it) and it diminishes humanity our to think that any "higher meaning" must be separate form that humanity.
- 4:20 PM
-
J.L. Hinman said... - so for some reason I don't understand you would rather just not recognize universal meaning because you don't like it, or you can't accept a will greater than your own, or whatever. But that's just you matter of taste. That doesn't answer the argument logically." My answer to the argument is that as human beings we experience the world in a human context. There are two points to be made from that observation; any meaning we find is human meaning (because it is we who experience it) and it diminishes humanity our to think that any "higher meaning" must be separate form that humanity. the vast majority of humans have sought higher meaning for thosuands of years. This is the essence of being human. Its' the major concept in Western thgouth. it's Plato had the forms and why postmoderism sees a meata narrative. Hundreds of studies show people do better in life when they feel they have it.
- 11:34 PM
-
A Hermit said... - "the vast majority of humans have sought higher meaning for thosuands of years. This is the essence of being human. Its' the major concept in Western thgouth. it's Plato had the forms and why postmoderism sees a meata narrative. Hundreds of studies show people do better in life when they feel they have it." I'm not disputing that, I'm suggesting that "higher meaning" is still "human meaning." You said it yourself; it's the "essence of being human."
- 12:41 PM
-
Kristen said...
- I really liked what you had to say here, Joe. I just wanted to address an issue that arose in my mind based on these statements: Meaning is a function of truth, and truth is the limit on meaning. In other words The only way that something is meaningful is in proportion to the extent to which it represents the truth of some situation or outlook. . . . The fact that meaning is subject[ive] does not indicate that God can't bestow meaning. . . . [People] lambast Sartre for finding that meaning depends upon God. Meaning is a function of truth, right. And I think one of the problems in understanding God and meaning can be that people think “God bestows meaning” means God sort of arbitrarily decides to slap meaning onto something, whether or not it's actually meaningful (in this sense, meaning that humans think it’s meaningful) or not. But this is not compatible with meaning being a function of truth. The truth, according to the Christian worldview, is that universal meaning does not occur because God “bestows” it on something, but because God means, or purposes, the being of that something. The universe has meaning because God meant the universe to be. My life has purpose because God made me on purpose, and for a purpose. That’s what meaning is– the sense that something has been meant, wilfully, by someone. But if you think that means that we humans would not be free to develop our own sense of meaning for ourselves and grow in accordance with that meaning (ie, that we're not allowed to mean anything by our own lives), that’s an inaccurate interpretation of what Christians mean by universal “meaning.” The idea that you’re designed for a purpose means that you’re fit for that purpose– in other words, whatever you in your deepest heart most long to be, whatever will give you the greatest sense of purpose and fulfillment, is exactly what you were purposed for. And may I say that I think this is open-ended and sort of fluid? I don’t believe we have this set-in-stone inescapable destiny, but more that there are a variety of ways we can fulfill our purpose. I don’t believe God directs exactly where, how and how big every branch on a tree is going to grow either. God lets trees– and us– grow naturally. We’re not pruned into artificial shapes like firs on a Christmas tree farm. And that’s why I can find no overarching sense of meaning from the idea that I, and my life, were not meant or purposed, but are just random results of a blind universe. I also wanted to address a few of A Hermit’s comments: “really I'm not concerned with whether or not my life has an everlasting, universal meaning; it is enough that it has a human meaning. I don't see why meaning, for human beings, needs to be any bigger than that.” In addition to my last sentence above, I made some rather long comments to part 1 of Metacrock’s blog addressing this. Subjective human opinion about meaning has somehow never been enough for me. I have always, from childhood, wanted something that transcended that– I wanted something more objective, some sense of meaning/value that would still be valuable whether anyone thought it was or not. If it’s enough for you, fine– but “it’s meaningful because I think it is,” has just never worked for me. And somehow I don’t think I’m alone in that (grin). “the only meanings that can have any consequence for human beings are human meanings.” This is not necessarily true– not if there really is a purpose behind all this that transcends us. “it diminishes humanity our to think that any "higher meaning" must be separate form that humanity.” I suppose it “diminishes humanity” in the sense that it takes us off the thrones of our own subjective universes, yes. But it vastly increases humanity in terms of objective value and dignity to have been meant and purposed to be, by something higher than ourselves. Having said all that, I'm probably not going to be able to respond to responses about it-- I have relatives visiting and am only snatching a few minutes to post here. Sorry, and carry on, everyone!
- 1:14 PM
-
A Hermit said... - "I suppose it “diminishes humanity” in the sense that it takes us off the thrones of our own subjective universes, yes. But it vastly increases humanity in terms of objective value and dignity to have been meant and purposed to be, by something higher than ourselves." That's a rather unfair portrait of what I was saying, I think. I'm not proposing some sort of selfish "me-first" humanism here. In fact, I think there's a lot more hubris and arrogance in the proposition that the forces which created the Universe take a close personal sentient interest in my existence than in finding meaning and intrinsic value in simple, common humanity. And I'm suspicious of ideologies, religious or political, that claim a tie to some objective "higher purpose" (which appears to me at least as "subjective" as humanity...). It' easier to overcome our humanity if we believe we are doing so in the service of something greater than that humanity. "Having said all that, I'm probably not going to be able to respond to responses about it-- I have relatives visiting and am only snatching a few minutes to post here..." My sympathies. Just had all my wife's relatives here for the weekend...including my Rush-Limbaugh-wannabe brother-in-law. I may not have much stomach left for any vigorous debate here, either...;-)
- 12:36 PM
-
J.L. Hinman said... - And I'm suspicious of ideologies, religious or political, that claim a tie to some objective "higher purpose" (which appears to me at least as "subjective" as humanity...). It' easier to overcome our humanity if we believe we are doing so in the service of something greater than that humanity. actually I can understand taht. The onlyk way you are every really going to know is just to make he personal contact and develop the relationship with God. leap of faith, only way. "Having said all that, I'm probably not going to be able to respond to responses about it-- I have relatives visiting and am only snatching a few minutes to post here..." My sympathies. Just had all my wife's relatives here for the weekend...including my Rush-Limbaugh-wannabe brother-in-law. I may not have much stomach left for any vigorous debate here, either...;-) I symathize ;-|
- 1:49 PM
-
A Hermit said... - "actually I can understand taht. The onlyk way you are every really going to know is just to make he personal contact and develop the relationship with God. leap of faith, only way." Been there, done that, got nothin', moved on. I find I'm much better now.
- 2:32 PM
-
J.L. Hinman said... - that's because you didn't use my handy dandy new "religiomatic." For just $12.95 you too can enjoy the thrill of transcendence. just send $12.95 allow $7.00 for delivery to "Doxa Religiomatic." offer void where prohibited by common sense.
- 9:24 AM
-
Kristen said... - That's a rather unfair portrait of what I was saying, I think. I'm not proposing some sort of selfish "me-first" humanism here. I didn't really intend it that way, Hermit-- more to say that it seems to me to be a basic part of human nature to put ourselves at the center of things-- not an indictment so much as a simple statement of fact. It's something we overcome only by conscious decision, I think-- and I think at its best, religion can help us make that decision. In fact, I think there's a lot more hubris and arrogance in the proposition that the forces which created the Universe take a close personal sentient interest in my existence than in finding meaning and intrinsic value in simple, common humanity." Either position can be arrogant, I think. But neither need be. It depends largely on the attitude of the person holding the belief. In fact, it seems to me that we often are at our worst when we make our human meaning subservient to some larger ideal; it is only by appealing to some ideal "bigger" than our humanity (be it religion, politics, nationalism or whatever)that we are able to overcome that humanity and behave inhumanely. We are often at our best, too, when we appeal to such ideals. The overcoming of our "humanity" can also mean overcoming the worst parts of our nature (not just the best parts) for the sake of some higher ideal. It's largely dependent on what the ideal is that we are reaching beyond ourselves for, don't you think? An ideal of "all humanity is precious, so be willing to risk your life to save even those you have no personal connection to" is a lot more conducive to bring out the best in us than "Take this land in the name of, and to promote, our God/our people/our way of life." I would say that both ideals have been held by people of both theistic and non-theistic persuasion, at various times in history. Oh, and Joe-- you're on a roll today. Still laughing!
- 10:35 AM
-
A Hermit said... - "...it seems to me to be a basic part of human nature to put ourselves at the center of things-- not an indictment so much as a simple statement of fact. It's something we overcome only by conscious decision, I think-- and I think at its best, religion can help us make that decision." As I see it we cannot help but put our human selves at the centre, since all of our perception is human. Even religion is a product of our humanity; sometimes the best part, and sometiems the worst. "The overcoming of our "humanity" can also mean overcoming the worst parts of our nature (not just the best parts) for the sake of some higher ideal... ...An ideal of "all humanity is precious, so be willing to risk your life to save even those you have no personal connection to" is a lot more conducive to bring out the best in us than "Take this land in the name of, and to promote, our God/our people/our way of life."" That's kind of my point; if it's humanity that's precious to us we'll work to protect it; if we place higher value on something outside simple, common humanity, be it God, country or ideology, than humanity becomes expendable.
- 2:00 PM
-
Kristen said... - A Hermit said: As I see it we cannot help but put our human selves at the centre, since all of our perception is human. True-- but we also have the ability to imagine perspectives different from our own, and indeed we need to do so in order to value and protect the other creatures with whom we share our planet. That's kind of my point; if it's humanity that's precious to us we'll work to protect it; if we place higher value on something outside simple, common humanity, be it God, country or ideology, than humanity becomes expendable. Then I think we're on the same page. :) But I would reiterate that valuing and protecting humanity is an ideal taught my my religion, and placing an idealogy above human value is certainly not exclusively a religious thing to do.
- 11:03 AM
Civilization: Sixteen Comments on Meaning and Truth part 2
