The secular meaning of life

[DrZoidberg]

Here's something I snipped up in a conversation with a friend. A throwaway comment that made me think.

Is the secular meaning of life the inevitable progress of civilisation? So a heritage of the Enlightenment? And are we losing that idea? What will happen when we do?

Some background. I belong to those who doesn't believe in plain nihilism. We need a goal in life to function. We need a goal for our coming day. I believe that people who say that life is about just finding pleasure and avoiding pain just haven't spent enough time introspecting.

Both Nazism and Communism are attempts to fix this problem. Communism was born from the insight that life will always be shit for poor people, no matter how much wealth they help create. Which was true in 1848. Nazism is born from Darwinism/social Darwinism meeting the stock market crash of 1929. The insight is that life is a constant struggle. But only if we do [insert utopia] everything will be great.

If we accept it as true that we need a meaning of life (something more than plain nihilism) and that the belief in the inevitable progress of humanity is dying... what will replace it?

I think that's why religion is getting a come back

What do you guys think, and what can we do about it?

 

[Lion IRC]

First answer the existential question - is it scientifically valid to view life in terms of "meaning".
If a coin tossing machine randomly comes up heads, does that have any more "meaning" than tails?

Does the simple, secular, process of evolutionary time plus chance justify violating Occams Razor by way of introducing a superfluous complication called "meaning"?

You won't let theists smuggle in teleology.

 

[James Brown]

Is religion getting a comeback?

An ongoing spate of recent studies - looking at various countries around the world - all show the same thing: religion is in decline. From Scandinavia to South America, and from Vancouver to Seoul, the world is experiencing an unprecedented wave of secularization. Indeed, as a recent National Geographic report confirms, the world’s newest religion is: No Religion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

First answer the existential question - is it scientifically valid to view life in terms of "meaning".
If a coin tossing machine randomly comes up heads, does that have any more "meaning" than tails?

Does the simple, secular, process of evolutionary time plus chance justify violating Occams Razor by way of introducing a superfluous complication called "meaning"?

You won't let theists smuggle in teleology.

It fails the first test. Is it a testable hypothesis? If not, it's not science. So it's not science. So it's philosophy. Which is why I posted it in the metaphysics sub-forum. I'd also argue that "what is life" isn't either a scientific question. We need to define what life is in philosophy, and then we can use science to test that. But life in itself is too vague of a concept to be meaningful scientifically.

Life doesn't have an intrinsic meaning. That's just a fact of life. So we need to give life a meaning. Theists have solved that by inventing a God. I don't really see the point of that, since it's just finding a meaning of life with an added step. Whatever meaning of life belief in God gives you, it'll make no difference if you just jump to the meaning of life step and skip God.

If your meaning of life is to toss as many coins as you can, then you hit the jackpot with a coin tossing machine.

If there is a teleology I've accepted that we'll never be able to find out about it. The universe is just too big. There's just no possible way to travel to the edge of the universe and take a peak at what is beyond. If there is anything. Anybody who claims to know anyway is just deluded. Just like we don't take people seriously when they claim they are Napoleon or that their toaster is talking to them... neither should we take people seriously when they claim to sit on some higher knowledge only privy to those in some special club.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is religion getting a comeback?

An ongoing spate of recent studies - looking at various countries around the world - all show the same thing: religion is in decline. From Scandinavia to South America, and from Vancouver to Seoul, the world is experiencing an unprecedented wave of secularization. Indeed, as a recent National Geographic report confirms, the world’s newest religion is: No Religion.

I think it is. It's just new religions coming. The old ones are out of style. The reason I think it is so is because... there's just so many smartphones, fancy watches and boob jobs people can buy before life feels empty. We need to give it some sort of higher purpose. Religion comes with a handy starter kit. Just pick one off the rack and you're ready to go. But secular versions. I think theism is dying. It's certainly coughing up blood

It's that or utopianism. I sincearly hope utopianism isn't about to make a comeback.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As with everything, "meaning" is only that which the individual subjectively ascribes or derives. Whether atheist or theist, "meaning" is utterly random and capricious. It's whatever strikes your fancy. Why? Because it is born out of our pattern recognition abilities. You see a bunny in the clouds or a tiger in the grass samey samey. So what you ascribe/derive from that is entirely within that moment and largely influenced by previous experiences (aka, "associations"). Basically our eyes/brains are doing a constant mugshot scan every nano second, with the goal of picking out the predators from the prey. That's where "meaning" comes from.

Iow, there can never be any one grounded base "meaning" to measure everything else by. It's not possible in the same sense that a married bachelor isn't possible. It's a category error. Even for theists who insist that their derivation (aka, "meaning") is grounded in God, this is quite obviously nonsensical wishfulment at best as not a single theist can ever define what God is, other than "the ground of all meaning." Its circular sophistry.

To ask, "What is the meaning of life" is really to ask, "Why have I put up with all of this suffering? What is my reward for not just killing myself?" So the question too is a category error. A binary one at that. There are all kinds of "meaning" to all kinds of events/experiences. Hell you can watch the same film a hundred times and find (derive) a thousand different meanings each time you watch it, so, ironically, "meaning" doesn't mean anything while at the same time it means everything.

Iow, it means exactly what you want it to mean--associate--at any given time. That's why it's so elusive. We want there to be a 1 when its nature is a 0.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is religion getting a comeback?

An ongoing spate of recent studies - looking at various countries around the world - all show the same thing: religion is in decline. From Scandinavia to South America, and from Vancouver to Seoul, the world is experiencing an unprecedented wave of secularization. Indeed, as a recent National Geographic report confirms, the world’s newest religion is: No Religion.

That's my impression, too.

Going into churches here in Paris just to feel the presence of God, I find invariably that the pious are very, very few. Usually, there are more visitors like me than worshippers. Often, the only signs of any religious fervour are the slow-burning candles in front of (the statue of) Marie. Only fifty years ago the churches were still full on Sunday mornings everywhere in France. Nowadays, on Sunday mornings, people just sleep late.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

As with everything, "meaning" is only that which the individual subjectively ascribes or derives. Whether atheist or theist, "meaning" is utterly random and capricious. It's whatever strikes your fancy. Why? Because it is born out of our pattern recognition abilities. You see a bunny in the clouds or a tiger in the grass samey samey. So what you ascribe/derive from that is entirely within that moment and largely influenced by previous experiences (aka, "associations"). Basically our eyes/brains are doing a constant mugshot scan every nano second, with the goal of picking out the predators from the prey. That's where "meaning" comes from.

Iow, there can never be any one grounded base "meaning" to measure everything else by. It's not possible in the same sense that a married bachelor isn't possible. It's a category error. Even for theists who insist that their derivation (aka, "meaning") is grounded in God, this is quite obviously nonsensical wishfulment at best as not a single theist can ever define what God is, other than "the ground of all meaning." Its circular sophistry.

To ask, "What is the meaning of life" is really to ask, "Why have I put up with all of this suffering? What is my reward for not just killing myself?" So the question too is a category error. A binary one at that. There are all kinds of "meaning" to all kinds of events/experiences. Hell you can watch the same film a hundred times and find (derive) a thousand different meanings each time you watch it, so, ironically, "meaning" doesn't mean anything while at the same time it means everything.

Iow, it means exactly what you want it to mean--associate--at any given time. That's why it's so elusive. We want there to be a 1 when its nature is a 0.

But do we? Do we pick it as individuals, or do a lot of secularists happen to pick the same meaning of their lives. Why that one/ones? That would be interesting

 

[PyramidHead]

First answer the existential question - is it scientifically valid to view life in terms of "meaning".
If a coin tossing machine randomly comes up heads, does that have any more "meaning" than tails?

Does the simple, secular, process of evolutionary time plus chance justify violating Occams Razor by way of introducing a superfluous complication called "meaning"?

You won't let theists smuggle in teleology.

I agree with the direction of these questions, but from a negative perspective rather than the positive one you are apparently suggesting with your last comment.

All meaning (in the sense of significance, value) is part of the project humans must initiate as a reaction to the absence of any meaning or value to life on its own. The creation of meaning is always at the expense of others, who are trying to create their own meaning while occupying the same space. The OP makes some concession to this fact in passing:

Both Nazism and Communism are attempts to fix this problem. Communism was born from the insight that life will always be shit for poor people, no matter how much wealth they help create. Which was true in 1848. Nazism is born from Darwinism/social Darwinism meeting the stock market crash of 1929. The insight is that life is a constant struggle. But only if we do [insert utopia] everything will be great.

The baseline fact of the matter is that life is a constant struggle, especially for the poor but for everybody to some extent, so we are obligated to enact policies to defend ourselves from life's inherent harshness. But obviously, as history shows, no attempt to mitigate the basic problems of humanity can proceed without stepping on the toes of actual humans, in a small or a big way. It's not that the particulars of the movement are wrong, in the sense that replacing a communist government with a democratic government (or vice versa) will solve everything, it's that all human acts are situated in a crowded, interconnected zone where harm to others is inevitable. Social and economic movements are palliative measures that proceed within the confines of this structural unfairness, which we inherit at birth.

Some background. I belong to those who doesn't believe in plain nihilism. We need a goal in life to function. We need a goal for our coming day. I believe that people who say that life is about just finding pleasure and avoiding pain just haven't spent enough time introspecting.

Another manifestation of the compulsory value-creation I mentioned is the tacit agreement among ourselves that investigating the root causes of our predicament as humans is only worth doing if the answer is consistent with a preordained, uncritical favoring of life's perpetual forward movement. There can be no anti-vital truths, nothing that threatens the underlying goal of flourishing, expanding, multiplying, renewing, advancing, and we should dismiss as nihilistic (even cowardly) any fact about life that compels stasis, monotony, vacating, withering, emptying, withdrawing, allowing to expire, concluding. If this is philosophy, and philosophy is the disinterested pursuit of truth, and truth is not subjected to the a priori condition that it must cohere with a life-affirming ethic, then it cannot be assumed at the outset that the result of "introspecting" will not be nihilistic. Because we are so addicted to the enterprise of creating meaning in the world, we place a stigma on all philosophical conclusions that are uninteresting or banal, leading nowhere, as if built into reality were some metaphysical necessity that truth always be a refreshing and fertile thing. Why can it not be the case that we spend time "introspecting", radically and without prejudice, and the fruit of our introspection is something that terminates rather than spurs enthusiasm, something that is not emotionally satisfying but troubling, something incredibly boring and simple, not invigorating?

I am not suggesting that nihilism is true, or that any specific view is true, I am just pointing out the curious and underhanded way that certain views are disqualified as simplistic, not because of their content but because they do not support the overarching "progress of civilization", which never itself needs justification for some reason.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As with everything, "meaning" is only that which the individual subjectively ascribes or derives. Whether atheist or theist, "meaning" is utterly random and capricious. It's whatever strikes your fancy. Why? Because it is born out of our pattern recognition abilities. You see a bunny in the clouds or a tiger in the grass samey samey. So what you ascribe/derive from that is entirely within that moment and largely influenced by previous experiences (aka, "associations"). Basically our eyes/brains are doing a constant mugshot scan every nano second, with the goal of picking out the predators from the prey. That's where "meaning" comes from.

Iow, there can never be any one grounded base "meaning" to measure everything else by. It's not possible in the same sense that a married bachelor isn't possible. It's a category error. Even for theists who insist that their derivation (aka, "meaning") is grounded in God, this is quite obviously nonsensical wishfulment at best as not a single theist can ever define what God is, other than "the ground of all meaning." Its circular sophistry.

To ask, "What is the meaning of life" is really to ask, "Why have I put up with all of this suffering? What is my reward for not just killing myself?" So the question too is a category error. A binary one at that. There are all kinds of "meaning" to all kinds of events/experiences. Hell you can watch the same film a hundred times and find (derive) a thousand different meanings each time you watch it, so, ironically, "meaning" doesn't mean anything while at the same time it means everything.

Iow, it means exactly what you want it to mean--associate--at any given time. That's why it's so elusive. We want there to be a 1 when its nature is a 0.

But do we?

Yes.

Do we pick it as individuals, or do a lot of secularists happen to pick the same meaning of their lives.

We always pick everything as individuals. Even if that pick is "I'll go along with the herd" it's still ultimately an individual choice.

Why that one/ones? That would be interesting

Not particularly. We first learn from our parents and then measure everything against that standard for the rest of our lives. The most important years are our formative ones, which is why cults always include instructions to "suffer the children unto me" and the like. And why we put our kids into indoctrination camps as early as 4 and 5 years old to last them until just before their brains finally finish maturing (i.e., at 25). It's the most vulnerable and most susceptible period of their lives and what is taught/experienced in those years is what dominates everything that comes after, either positively or negatively.

We are programmed first; then it's up to the individual to deprogram, which is what "enlightenment" actually entails. And once you reach the stage of "the now" and understand that there is no such thing as "meaning" in an objective sense (and never could be), that's the abyss. You either look into it and go, "Hmm" and walk away or you fall into it and never come back out.

If you're one of the few to walk away, then you realize it's all subjective and always has been all subjective and that's great. It means you're a free agent and thus things like "Morality" and 'Philosophy" finally have true meaning; the meaning you ascribe/derive.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We always pick everything as individuals. Even if that pick is "I'll go along with the herd" it's still ultimately an individual choice.

You are talking about free will. I'm not. Please stick to the subject.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My short answer is that we can pick and choose whatever meaning suits us.

I guess that's what most people do without necessarily fussing about it. It may be having a family to raise kids. Your job. Sport. Any activity that's engrossing enough. If you're deep into what you're doing then the meaning of life is just that. And it seems to work.

Obviously, things don't last forever and we can easily become dissatisfied and "disengaged". I suspect this happens mostly as a result of some undiagnosed psychological condition or more accurately some neurological disorder. Also, if some misfortune happens to you.

Sometimes, it will feel just like you're doing nothing because there's nothing you're interested in doing. It's boring, obviously, and you can become acutely aware then of the fact that time is slipping away and you're going to be left with having to look back at your life later having achieved nothing, not much, or just not enough.

Yet, there is no shortage of things to do. You can embrace the cause of the environment, or whatever cause tickle your fancy and is worth the trouble, and many are, if you're interested that is.

Human beings are mostly really stupid so there's plenty of smart ideas left to have for the first time that could be worth having for the benefit of humanity or whatever. If you're prepared to do some hard work, then the world is your oyster. And you can adjust the work to your resources and abilities.

Again, that's all mostly what people are already doing or trying to do whenever they have the resources. But I don't see that we need any unified perspective like you could say religions may try and fail to be. Let a hundred flowers bloom.

Maybe you can think of it as the meaning of life being that we're just trying to achieve our potential as human beings, both individually and collectively. Which is a unified perspective and should feel motivating to all of us. It's a journey of discovery and a discovery of the road to infinity (see David Deutsch).

What would be not meaningful about that?
EB

 

[Jobar]

Is there a singular 'secular meaning of life'? I rather think not. As Koy says, each individual has to find their own; and individuals can find an arbitrary number of meanings to life, secular or religious.

We're a social species, so usually our societies will frown on us pursuing 'meanings' that are plainly harmful to society, and to others. So there are social pressures on us to find meanings that are beneficial to others, or at least harmless. The amount of that pressure will vary with the society in question, and with the perceived harmfulness of what you might consider important or even vital for meaning in your life.

 

[Underseer]

Meaning and purpose are human creations.

It is the task of each of us to create our own purpose and meaning.

To ask another for propose and meaning is to ask to be ruled.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We always pick everything as individuals. Even if that pick is "I'll go along with the herd" it's still ultimately an individual choice.

You are talking about free will. I'm not. Please stick to the subject.

No, actually, I wasn’t.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is religion getting a comeback?

An ongoing spate of recent studies - looking at various countries around the world - all show the same thing: religion is in decline. From Scandinavia to South America, and from Vancouver to Seoul, the world is experiencing an unprecedented wave of secularization. Indeed, as a recent National Geographic report confirms, the world’s newest religion is: No Religion.

I think it is. It's just new religions coming. The old ones are out of style. The reason I think it is so is because... there's just so many smartphones, fancy watches and boob jobs people can buy before life feels empty. We need to give it some sort of higher purpose. Religion comes with a handy starter kit. Just pick one off the rack and you're ready to go. But secular versions. I think theism is dying. It's certainly coughing up blood

It's that or utopianism. I sincearly hope utopianism isn't about to make a comeback.

I would agree that some people at least may feel they live spiritually empty lives and look for something to fill the vacuum but that doesn't amount to producing new religions. The main point of religion as I see it is to have people connected or bound to each other by common rites and the nonsensical conviction that they share the same spiritual belief. It may still happen but that seems unlikely as long as spirituality remains an open market and there's enough competition. Right now, if you have any new religions at all, they concern only a few thousand at most and they don't last more than a few generations.

I also think that humanity is now evolving so fast that very little will keep making sense from one generation to the next beyond the incontrovertible basics such as food and sleep, and then I'm not even sure about that.

I guess we really don't know where we 're going and so it's always possible, even perhaps very likely, that we meet with some major mishap with subsequent disintegration of the world order for a few centuries. Then religions may have a come back. But I don't wish this on them.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it is. It's just new religions coming. The old ones are out of style. The reason I think it is so is because... there's just so many smartphones, fancy watches and boob jobs people can buy before life feels empty. We need to give it some sort of higher purpose. Religion comes with a handy starter kit. Just pick one off the rack and you're ready to go. But secular versions. I think theism is dying. It's certainly coughing up blood

It's that or utopianism. I sincearly hope utopianism isn't about to make a comeback.

I would agree that some people at least may feel they live spiritually empty lives and look for something to fill the vacuum but that doesn't amount to producing new religions. The main point of religion as I see it is to have people connected or bound to each other by common rites and the nonsensical conviction that they share the same spiritual belief. It may still happen but that seems unlikely as long as spirituality remains an open market and there's enough competition. Right now, if you have any new religions at all, they concern only a few thousand at most and they don't last more than a few generations.

What about sports? I think being a sport supporter qualifies as being part of a religion. I have an ex-wife who is a fanatical sports supporter. It's certainly religion to her. Yet, she identifies as an atheist. I'd argue sports is the biggest religion of today.

I think we are a social species where being part of a social fabric is more important than anything else. Normal people are willing to sacrifice any beliefs and values to get respect by the people they respect. People who aren't like this, aren't normal.

I also think that humanity is now evolving so fast that very little will keep making sense from one generation to the next beyond the incontrovertible basics such as food and sleep, and then I'm not even sure about that.

I guess we really don't know where we 're going and so it's always possible, even perhaps very likely, that we meet with some major mishap with subsequent disintegration of the world order for a few centuries. Then religions may have a come back. But I don't wish this on them.
EB

I think it's having a come-back now. The problem is that we usually define religion as "faith". But religion is more an activity than a belief system. So modern new religions are wrongly being labelled as just associations or clubs. But they have all the hallmarks of religion IMHO

 

[steve_bank]

There is no 'secular meaning of life'. Pick the -osophy or -ism that suits you. The human history is chatic and violent and continuos struggles for power. Hitler thought war was a natural human state. Historically he may have been right.

The American Revolution was an idealistic experiment, the idea that chaotic humans prone to aggression and dispute could manage themselves without an overarching power and authority.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What about sports? I think being a sport supporter qualifies as being part of a religion. I have an ex-wife who is a fanatical sports supporter. It's certainly religion to her. Yet, she identifies as an atheist. I'd argue sports is the biggest religion of today.

I think we are a social species where being part of a social fabric is more important than anything else. Normal people are willing to sacrifice any beliefs and values to get respect by the people they respect. People who aren't like this, aren't normal.

OK. So, I'm not normal. Or maybe I don't respect anybody. Or I'm not willing to sacrifice either some beliefs or some values.

I also think that humanity is now evolving so fast that very little will keep making sense from one generation to the next beyond the incontrovertible basics such as food and sleep, and then I'm not even sure about that.

I guess we really don't know where we 're going and so it's always possible, even perhaps very likely, that we meet with some major mishap with subsequent disintegration of the world order for a few centuries. Then religions may have a come back. But I don't wish this on them.
EB

I think it's having a come-back now. The problem is that we usually define religion as "faith". But religion is more an activity than a belief system. So modern new religions are wrongly being labelled as just associations or clubs. But they have all the hallmarks of religion IMHO

I can see some similarities between religion and football supporters but I think that's just that.

And comparison is not reason.

Supporters don't have religious rites. They have communion, usage, culture, habits, and non-religious rituals, like indeed many people outside both religion and sport.

Religious rites are thought of as a way to communicate with an actual spirit. Nothing like that for supporters.

That being said, sport may well deprive religion of its oxygen if supporters go support Manchester United instead of the Church.

And sport may also play a similar function as religion for many people. I personally think that most religious people have always been only pretending. I don't think anything more than a small minority of people were ever really religious at any time throughout history. So, maybe it's some of the same people who were religious who are now football supporters. Just maybe.

 

[DrZoidberg]

OK. So, I'm not normal. Or maybe I don't respect anybody. Or I'm not willing to sacrifice either some beliefs or some values.

Considering how many people are either religious, sport supporters, politically activists or all three.... I think it's pretty clear that you are not normal. Most people are part of some tribe or another which they try hard to fit into.

I can see some similarities between religion and football supporters but I think that's just that.

And comparison is not reason.

Supporters don't have religious rites. They have communion, usage, culture, habits, and non-religious rituals, like indeed many people outside both religion and sport.

I think communal rituals intended to unite communities across ages is religious rituals. I think sports qualify extremely well.

Religious rites are thought of as a way to communicate with an actual spirit. Nothing like that for supporters.

I don't agree that's a necessary qualification. It's too narrow. Sweden has several pagan religious rituals we perform anually. All our "Christian" rituals are just pagan rituals left, pretty much intact. Which make no sense in a Christian context. These have survived in spite paganism being a dead religion. It has been for almost a thousand years now. Yet, these rituals survive. Christianity today is pretty much a dead religion in Sweden. That ain't stopping us keeping all those religious rituals alive also.

We need an explanation other than "religious rituals is a way to communicate with an actual spirit" to explain how these have survived in Sweden.

That being said, sport may well deprive religion of its oxygen if supporters go support Manchester United instead of the Church.

And sport may also play a similar function as religion for many people. I personally think that most religious people have always been only pretending. I don't think anything more than a small minority of people were ever really religious at any time throughout history. So, maybe it's some of the same people who were religious who are now football supporters. Just maybe.

I see religion in functional terms. Anything that replaces the functions of religion is religion.

I don't think they are pretending at all. I think it's just you who haven't understood what religion is. This is what it is. God/the spirit is the least interesting part of religions.