Meaning and Existence

[_Coggins7]

OK, but as I demonstrated in my posts above, these things simply don't follow inferentially unless one accepts premise 8 (which atheists do not). So all you have demonstrated is that from an atheist perspective, inherent meaning does not exist. And again, I ask you: so what?

They don't have to accept the existence of God at the outset. What they must accept logically is that their world view precludes any concern on their part about world views other than their own. Whether or not there is teleology in the universe alters nothing regarding the logical teeth of Beckwith's point.

It follows from my propositions that if there is no God, nor teleology, then our existence is without any intrinsic meaning. Atheists can do what they wish with this, including construct philosophies such as Existentialism, but they cannot escape the laws of language that place them in this box.

I presume this is your answer:

Quote:
...atheists have to run away from the implications of their own metaphysics only to collide with it head on every time they take a philosophical position on anything or make value judgments upon which ideas, behaviors, or manners of life are best.

However, I don't see atheists running away from anything. Most atheists accept a utilitarian ethic that maximizes well-being for all parties involved. This is similar to "social contract" political theory: a mutual agreement that benefits all parties by permitting them the greatest freedom to create their own meaning but also imposing certain limitations to avoid the encroachment of one man's freedom on another's.

Yes, and all completely illusory and arbitrary. Nazis will disagree with you and in a universe without God and overarching standards or laws, you have no means by which you can claim that your ethos is any better than theirs, save that you don't like it because it threatens you or because of internal psychological distaste. Further, utilitarianism is relativistic; a wide variety of moral and ethical systems can coexist with it depending upon how the social contract is structured, what a critical mass of society chooses to accept, and how terms are defined.

Nothing changes here. Your utilitarian ethos is one among many in a universe devoid of any transcendent standard by which any such ethos can be judged as any worse or any better than any other.

When our sun finally collapses and then explodes as it runs out of fuel, it will not have mattered whether we ever had this conversation or not, nor how many Jews went to the gas chambers, nor how many rapes were committed, nor how many good deeds were done, nor sacrifices made for others in the name of higher principles. There are no higher principles.

[_Analytics]

No he's not. He's asserting that the universe has meaning if it was created with a specific purpose. One of his arguments is that human-created things (even if we think they have a purpose) don't accrue meaning because the humans that created them themselves have no meaning, and something meaningless (in his argument) cannot create meaning in something else.

His universe gets to have meaning because God created it, and he asserts that God has meaning, therefor something can get meaning because it was created for a purpose by a meaningful entity. However, he is simply asserting that God himself has meaning, without any proof, or evidence, that he does. That doesn't work.

His argument is really baseless until he can demonstrate that God has meaning, and that the purposes for which God creates things can then have meaning.

He also cannot just assert that something (a human) that has no inherent meaning, by his definition, cannot create something meaningful. His just saying so doesn't cut it.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here; my point was that he was at least addressing why he thinks that the universe under the LDS paradigm has meaning. Successfully defending his position? I won't call it until the discussion is done.

[_Analytics]

Hello Analytics,
...There is no entailment here. You appealed to Modus tollens (by which I think you meant Modus ponens), but in order for that to apply we would have to add an extra premise to your above outline:

8a. If we find meaning in our lives, inherent meaning exists.
8b. We find meaning in our lives.
8c. Therefore, inherent meaning exists.
9. Therefore, there is a creator.

Premise 8a is where this crashes and burns. As Coggins said in the OP, there are two types of meaning: inherent meaning and subjective meaning. If one finds meaning in one's life, it could be subjective rather than inherent, so finding meaning does not imply the existence of inherent meaning. If you respond by defining "find" as referring to the discovery of what is already there, then I would object to premise 8b. There's no reason to believe that we "find" meaning in this sense as opposed to creating it. And so we find ourselves again at an impasse, having demonstrated nothing at all.

-CK

The way I had it framed in my mind was this:

1- If the universe has no meaning, then humans have no meaning.
2- Humans have meaning.
3- Therefore, the universe has meaning. (MT)
4- Therefore, there is a God.

So anyway I agree--premise 1 is problematic; nevertheless, it is what cogs asserted.

The way I look at this is to think more about what is "inherent" meaning. My coffee mug, for example, was designed by an intelligent creator for a specific purpose--to hold coffee and other hot beverages (and to generate profits for the company that made it). Does that qualify as having inherent meaning? I think it does--an intelligent creator created it for a specific purpose. It certainly isn't subjective meaning. If somebody said that the meaning of the mug was to, say, throw at the wall, that would be subjective--it would be somebody assinging a meaning that really has nothing to do with the meaing of the designer.

[_Coggins7]

So anyway I agree--premise 1 is problematic; nevertheless, it is what cogs asserted.

No, its not problematic at all. Its logically necessitated by the terms of any premise orbelief that states the universe is a product of blind, random chance. As long as you define "meaning" as your own subjective though world, you are correct, the universe has meaning. In Dawkin's world, you can, like Peter Pan, fly if you just believe hard enough, and believing makes it so. However, you are still nothing more than a tiny speck of meat in a far corner of the universe that has no intrinsic value or purpose. The very consciousness with which you comprehend this argument is simply a derivative function of your CNS, which CNS evolved as a fortuitous accident among any number of possible permutations.

The way I look at this is to think more about what is "inherent" meaning. My coffee mug, for example, was designed by an intelligent creator for a specific purpose--to hold coffee and other hot beverages (and to generate profits for the company that made it). Does that qualify as having inherent meaning? I think it does--an intelligent creator created it for a specific purpose. It certainly isn't subjective meaning. If somebody said that the meaning of the mug was to, say, throw at the wall, that would be subjective--it would be somebody assinging a meaning that really has nothing to do with the meaing of the designer.

And how is this relevant?

[_Sethbag]

By the way guys, I'm out the door on a weeklong vacation with the family, during which I shall have next to no internet access. So there will be no more replies from me in this thread. If it'll make Cogs feel any better to think that he beat me and I had to run off with my tail between my legs, then "Holy Crap, Coggins, you stunned me with your brilliant and inciteful logic, and I give. Uncle! Uncle!"

[_CaliforniaKid]

Coggins,

What they must accept logically is that their world view precludes any concern on their part about world views other than their own.

I don't think this is what you meant to say. The word "preclude" means "to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible." But it is certainly possible for atheists to be concerned about other world views, even though said concern has no inherent meaning. (As a side note, said concern does have subjective meaning for most atheists.)

Yes, and all completely illusory and arbitrary.

I don't disagree with you, but I want to be very clear on what these terms mean.

Something that is "illusory" presents itself as being real but actually is not. Utilitarian ethics is illusory only insofar as it fails to acknowledge its subjective basis. (If theism is false, then it is quite a bit more illusory than utilitarian ethics. Utilitarianism, in theory, acknowledges its arbitrary quality. Theism does not.)

In the case of arbitrariness, we need to distinguish between two senses: what I will call a "strong" sense of the word and a "weak" sense of the word. Something that is "strongly" arbitrary would lack any basis or rationale. Something that is "weakly" arbitrary would lack an objective basis or rationale. Utilitarian ethics is weakly arbitrary but not strongly arbitrary, because it does have a basis in subjective values.

Utilitarianism takes as its starting point the desirability of well-being. While this is a subjective and weakly arbitrary value, it nevertheless seems to be a value that everybody agrees upon. Even animals act in ways intended to maximize well-being. The universality of this value is precisely what makes it an excellent starting point for a system of ethics. The utilitarian system can be arrived at by following line of reasoning:

1. My personal well-being is desirable.
2. Other people also value their own well-being.
3. Our pursuit of personal well-being tends to create conflict.
4. Conflict tends to reduce the probability that I (or any one other person) will be able to realize personal well-being.
5. Therefore, an arrangement that minimizes conflict while maximizing opportunities for the pursuit of well-being is desirable for all parties involved.

All that is required then, is for us to determine what arrangement accoplishes these goals. That is the task of ethical and political theory.

When our sun finally collapses and then explodes as it runs out of fuel, it will not have mattered whether we ever had this conversation or not, nor how many Jews went to the gas chambers, nor how many rapes were committed, nor how many good deeds were done, nor sacrifices made for others in the name of higher principles. There are no higher principles.

That is an accurate statement of the atheist perspective. But again I ask you, so what? The lack of transcendent meaning and higher principles in the atheist system does not make it untrue.

But let's approach this from a different angle. Have you ever read Euthyphro by Plato? It is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro in which they discuss the merits of divine command vs. natural law ethical theories. They essentially reach an impasse because both are arbitrary. God either arbitrarily chooses what he will consider right and what he will consider wrong, or he merely enforces a moral standard that is intrinsic to the universe's natural, arbitrary existence. It seems to me that divine command ethics can be anywhere on the scale from weakly to strongly arbitrary, but that natural law ethics are necessarily strongly arbitrary.

Modernist philosophy essentially rejects both of these options, since it finds no support for the existence either of a natural law or of a deity. Instead, it tends to choose utilitarianism (if, contra Nietzsche, it chooses anything at all). Mainstream Christian philosophy tends to opt for a sort of divine command theory. LDS philosophy generally rejects the divine command theory, preferring to posit the existence of a natural law that transcends even God. As I stated above, natural law ethics are strongly arbitrary.

I submit that in the LDS system, in which God is fundamentally the same species as we are (and in which he--like us-- finds himself bounded by space/time and the inherent properties of matter), it might make the most sense to see God as having imposed a utilitarian ethic that he derived in much the same way that modernist philosophers derive it. After all, many of the ethical axioms of the LDS faith are remarkably resonant with the ethical axioms of utilitarianism. If we opt for a strictly arbitrary divine command theory, we have to chalk the resonance up to coincidence.

-CK

[_CaliforniaKid]

By the way guys, I'm out the door on a weeklong vacation with the family, during which I shall have next to no internet access. So there will be no more replies from me in this thread. If it'll make Cogs feel any better to think that he beat me and I had to run off with my tail between my legs, then "Holy Crap, Coggins, you stunned me with your brilliant and inciteful logic, and I give. Uncle! Uncle!"

I, too, will be gone for a while. Until Friday evening, to be exact. I look forward to reading everyone's replies when I return.

[_Runtu]

Here is your primary problem Runtu: I have never claimed, and the Church has never taught, that God created meaning in the universe, nor morality, not good, nor evil, or the contrasts between them

So much the better. If God did not create meaning in the universe, then that universe is no more or less "meaningful" than one that arose randomly. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

[_Analytics]

For this conversation to even make sense, “inherent meaning” needs to be well defined. From your point of view, what are the necessary conditions for something to be inherently meaningful?

I’ll get the list started. Hopefully you’ll modify it to match your view.

My coffee cup is inherently meaningful if and only if:

1- It was created for a definite purpose
2- Everything else in the universe was also created for a definite purpose
3- That purpose can’t be limited to a limited span of time, but rather must be applicable and relevent for the rest of eternity.
4- That purpose can’t be limited to a limited place in space (i.e. this earth), but rather it must have a meaningful purpose everywhere in the universe.

From what you’ve said here, I think you agree with that. I’m I understanding correctly what you think it means for something to be inherently meaningful?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Analytics,

For this conversation to even make sense, “inherent meaning” needs to be well defined. From your point of view, what are the necessary conditions for something to be inherently meaningful?

I’ll get the list started. Hopefully you’ll modify it to match your view.

My coffee cup is inherently meaningful if and only if:

1- It was created for a definite purpose
2- Everything else in the universe was also created for a definite purpose
3- That purpose can’t be limited to a limited span of time, but rather must be applicable and relevent for the rest of eternity.
4- That purpose can’t be limited to a limited place in space (I.e. this earth), but rather it must have a meaningful purpose everywhere in the universe.

From what you’ve said here, I think you agree with that. I’m I understanding correctly what you think it means for something to be inherently meaningful?

Is this addressed to me? If so, then I'd say yes to #'s 1 and 2. I'm not sure what you mean by 3 and 4 or why they would be necessary.

I am operating with the definitions Coggins supplied in his original post:

1. Meaning can have two senses which should not be equivocated:

a. Subjective, idiosyncratic meanings we create and ascribe to existence and phenomena within the phenomenal world.

b. Intrinsic, inherent meaning that exists as a function of the purpose for which the phenomenal world was created

I think his definitions are sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

-CK