"The Meaning of Life"

[Trillipse]

Now, this is by nature a well-worn topic. Can anyone give me their own take on why everything *is*. . . I come from a Methodist Christian family and for them, everything is pretty much sewn up. Most of the people I know take a passive materialist/humanist/atheist stance. I am caught between the two, and as such i am angst-ridden and clenchy. anyone got any good ideas? my philosophy degree didn't help much either, but i put all my *faith* in the answer bank... don't let me down...

[jno]

The meaning of life is more life. Genes want to perpetuate themselves. Girls and boys are driven towards each other. After they've passed childbearing and childrearing age, their bodies run down; they're no longer needed; but their DNA lives on.

As to what a good life is, that's another question.

[calleach]

the answer is there is no answer- accepting that for me has been liberating

[jake-the-peg]

Firstly you have to decide if you believe in a religion.

For me it revolves around the "Soul". Every religion from Tribal animism to Roman Catholic has this concept it's the single common factor - I'd say it gives a good definition of what religion is.

Personally I think that although the temptation to believe in the "voice in your head" is overwhelming it is deeply flawed - but this isn't about what I believe.

If you can make some progress on that point I think it may help.

PS I hate the word athiest - as Richard Dawkins pointed out I don't believe in fairies either but nobody made up a special word for that! :c) 

[kaktus]

Couldn't agree more jno, I strongly believe that the meaning of life is to reproduce, just like all other animals. Because our brain works differently from other animals, just mean that we have other expectations to life than reproducing (fun, love, a job etc.), not that I think animals expects something from life, they just are. But as jake-thepeg said, if you believe that is something totally different, and you would have a very different approach to the meaning of life. I, who don't believe, have no problem with now I am, when I die I am not - end of story.

[Little Lady]

People who say they dont believe in anything i never really understand, as you live your life by what you belief in or you would have no opinions on anything would you?!

For me life is all about experiencing the here and now and being grateful for even the smaller things in life we take for granted, that the next person in a poorer country would give their left arm for.

I believe in life after death etc too but follow no religion just have my own beliefs, i think religions are what is tearing our world apart and causing so much war which is a shame. Whenever this conversation comes up with friends everyone tries to question your beliefs and putacross that theirs is right why can't we all be ruddy right and accept everyones beliefs and respect them Grrrr! We dont have to follow theirs do we. Sorry rant over........

[jno]

Worth noting that 'believe' has more than one meaning, some of them similar enough to be confusing. You can 'believe' in God - accept the existence of a supreme being and live by his rules, as a matter of faith. But you can also 'believe' (=think) that you should live in a certain way, without needing the existence of God to impel you to do so. As I mentioned before, the meaning of life is more life - but this neither accepts nor denies the existence of God.

[jake-the-peg]

Not believing in a spiritual authority does not mean that you don't have any guiding principles to live your life.

Some of the most moral people (like Bertrand Russell) were atheists and some of the most "evil" have been religous.

A commonly held principal is that people should have absolute freedom to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm anybody else.  In practice that's hard as most things can be argued to harm someone else in some way if only by omission. but it illustrates the point - moral codes do not need to be based in belief in spirituality.

Still morality and meaning are completely different. Strictly speaking "meaning" is very bound up with the whole concept of causality - we see things as linked - we look for the linkage in things - this urge is so strong that sometimes we create these linkages where they don't exist and end up with superstitions. From demons causing disease to Karma, Human beings are hardwired to look for meaning. The trick is determining where meaning exists and where we imagine it.  

[Hamish]

From a religious (Bible) perspective we were created to glorfy God. Therefore this is our function and our motivation. Perhaps your family don't see it this way. Try a local evangelical church, I could recomend one if you want to reveal were you are.

As to, the meaning is to reporduce, then why do we use contraception?

I disagree with Richard Dawkins statment. Religion, or its absence dictate how we live and our perspectives on life in a way that beliveing in faries does not. we have a whole range of words to describe the abcence of various common carateristics, bald, albino, dead.

[jno]

as to contraception, just because reproduction is the meaning of life doesn't mean we have to go looking for the meaning every day. We are free to subvert the meaning just as we're free to bring traffic to a halt by crossing the road while going our own way.

In social/biological terms, our genes may be perfectly happy for us to have just one or two children, healthily brought up and sent out to commit further reproduction, rather than have 10 or more whom we can't support and who may all die of malnutrition, say. Even royals, who are very concerned with perpetuating their line and can afford all the kids they want, may stop at two (as Charles and Diana did), 'an heir and a spare'.

[MargeB]

Jake, I see where you're coming from, but don't you think you're just harping back to the afairyism that you were brainwashed with as a youngster?

[happy_face]

little-lady - hear hear !!

[Hammer]

I can't believe no-one's said 42 yet !!

[MargeB]

little lady-hear hear hear.

[delilahcat]

I don't believe in a God either but that doesn't mean I haven't accepted a set of values to live my life by. Intelligent people realise that for society to work we have to abide by certain rules, that's why we have laws.I try never to hurt other people and always to help them when I can.

I have 2 basic ideas that I try to keep at the front of my thoughts - the first is that even when life is hard, it's very much better than the alternative! (And I agree wholeheartedly with littlelady when she says try to think about how lucky we are compared with the vast majority of people on earth. The simple things like turning on a tap and having clean, safe water for instance)

The second one is something that Arthur Balfour  said - 'Nothing in life matters very much and most things don't matter at all'. In other words, why do so many people focus on the little things instead of worrying about the big things? If you have family, friends, health and enough to eat, that's really all you need.

If you accept that life isn't a rehearsal and this is all there is, you can really live your life and enjoy every minute of it.

[El D]

Hamish, you people do make me laugh. It depends if you ascribe certain values to fairies which you then feel the need to live your life by etc. Please do not demean fairies again.

I thought the point of being a consciouse sentient being is that we can decide exactly what our life means by ourselves - it is about taking responsibility. And as already said, that is extremely liberating, knowing that my choices are MY choices. It's freedom on an unbelievable scale. What does my life mean? Whatever I want it to. How cool.

[jno]

actually, belief in God is not irrational, nor an easy way to avoid taking responsibility for your own life; Christians (to name just one religion) seem to run their lives just as effectively as atheists or animists. As Jake-the-peg pointed out, believers are not better or worse people than non-believers. Dawkins would argue (and does, all the time) that they're wrong about God's existence, but even he can't say that this means they're bad people.

[MargeB]

It depends how you choose to judge it, jno. Personally, I would say that they have made the wrong choice at a fundamental level. However, the extent to which they are responsible for this is reduced (I'll explain that in a bit).
If I look at all the things I can do during my life:
-go out and buy some bread
-get married
-choose to become a criminal
-choose to inform myself of current affairs
-choose to give up smoking
-choose to look after my parents when they are older.
I could sit these all on a scale, of 'very little overall imporance and effect' to 'very large overall importance and effect'. 'Overall importance' can be discovered largely by estimating the relative size in 'life' of that to which it refers, and 'overall effect' because it has a pyramid effect on the rest of my life, and even on that of my siblings. According to this scale, then, if belief in a supreme intelligent creator person were not to be a rational choice, but I went ahead and believed in it anyway, I would say that on the overall scale, I had pretty badly messed up my life. It's right at the top. It has an effect on most other decisions, and relates to the most important aspects of my existence. Not one to get wrong or take lightly. I think that people who subscribe to organized religions and believe in a 'Personal, All Powerful, Intelligent Designer' have made a complete hash of what I see as the most important decision to make in life. Bad luck. It's never 'polite or acceptable' to many people to say this, but I'll say it anyway, and out loud, because it is often perpetuated by virtue of political correctness.

[MargeB]

I think it comes up so often and always causes significant arguments because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons why people come to hold these beliefs. It is commonly thought to be a debate similar to a debate about, for example, the best way to buy a house. That is, it is assumed that you have maybe slightly better informed people on one side, with a set of ideas, and the collective opinions are aired, and then people become more informed as a result. I think that a religious or 'meaning of life' debate is nothing at all like this. This is because human beings are not designed to come to know truth, but to thrive. As a result of this, people can be brainwashed with the most ridiculous stuff, and then 'believe' it with their whole might, despite direct evidence to the contrary. To know the truth, your job is not to 'work with reason and what I know to come to establish the facts'. Your first job is to discover within yourself the biases and irrationalities to which you are easily prey, in order to supplant them. This is crucial. You are not a knowing machine. That you seem to know stuff is an evolutionary artefact of human social intelligence and probably tool use, it doesn't mean that you are well designed to know everything. Only be knowing how the machine works can you accomodate its limitations and work around them. So these head to heads over the 'meaning of life' and 'religion' are a bit of a joke. Believers will never shift ground under the force of reason, because they were prepared to accept their beliefs from the beginning without reason. I think those who have never been brainwashed, or have worked their way out of it, should count themselves very very causes significant arguments because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons why people come to hold these beliefs. It is commonly thought to be a debate similar to a debate about, for example, the best way to buy a house

[MargeB]

. That is, it is assumed that you have maybe slightly better informed people on one side, with a set of ideas, and the collective opinions are aired, and then people become more informed as a result. I think that a religious or 'meaning of life' debate is nothing at all like this. This is because human beings are not designed to come to know truth, but to thrive. As a result of this, people can be brainwashed with the most ridiculous stuff, and then 'believe' it with their whole might, despite direct evidence to the contrary. To know the truth, your job is not to 'work with reason and what I know to come to establish the facts'. Your first job is to discover within yourself the biases and irrationalities to which you are easily prey, in order to supplant them. This is crucial. You are not a knowing machine. That you seem to know stuff is an evolutionary artefact of human social intelligence and probably tool use, it doesn't mean that you are well designed to know everything. Only be knowing how the machine works can you accomodate its limitations and work around them.