Exactly HOW is religion supposed to give meaning to life?

[YesNo]

Interestingly no atheist sees it that way! The argument about atheism being a religion is used by some theists to make out that basically atheist are the same as theist, but just with a diffferent set of beliefs. It could be characterised as a retaliotory reaction by religious types to the criticism the receive from atheists. Fundamentally theists work on the notion of 'faith' while atheist do not operate on faith, but 'evidence' (for want of a better word). Many atheists can and do argue that if there was clear and unequivocal evidence for God, there would be no need for faith. In that situation God would be considered a fact.

One of the "beliefs" that atheists have is that they have no beliefs.

Most of the stuff we believe we are not even aware of until we are challenged in some way to examine it. Our common sense goes unnoticed.

For example, what does your common sense tell you about the reality of psi phenomena?

Another example, what is your interpretation of quantum physics? Do you believe in many worlds, superdeterminism, an ability to cause events to happen in the past, or do you believe that consciousness causes collapse? If you believe that consciousness causes collapse I think you are inevitably led to some "cosmic consciousness" which for all practical purposes is a God.

What do you believe is true about consciousness itself? Is it an epiphenomenon of the body, or is the body an ephiphenomenon of some mind, or do you believe in a form of dualism where both body and mind interact in some way?

[mortalterror]

One of the "beliefs" that atheists have is that they have no beliefs.

It's one of the most frustrating things about conversing with them. They often think that atheism isn't a belief, isn't a system of connected beliefs, isn't a movement, and that they've arrived at whatever assumptions they do hold independently through reason.

Most of the stuff we believe we are not even aware of until we are challenged in some way to examine it. Our common sense goes unnoticed.

For example, what does your common sense tell you about the reality of psi phenomena?

Mostly it's bunk, but I leave the possibility open, 'cause there's a lot of weirdness in the world and a lot of other people are convinced. Maybe, someone knows something I don't.

Another example, what is your interpretation of quantum physics? Do you believe in many worlds,

Not really.

superdeterminism,

Free will makes sense to me.

an ability to cause events to happen in the past,

Time travel? I don't think we're there yet.

or do you believe that consciousness causes collapse? If you believe that consciousness causes collapse I think you are inevitably led to some "cosmic consciousness" which for all practical purposes is a God.

I think the world is the world whatever we think about it or even if we don't.

What do you believe is true about consciousness itself? Is it an epiphenomenon of the body, or is the body an ephiphenomenon of some mind, or do you believe in a form of dualism where both body and mind interact in some way?

I think there is a bit of dualism going on. Whatever we are when separated from our bodies, the soul, might not even be called consciousness as we understand it.

[YesNo]

It's one of the most frustrating things about conversing with them. They often think that atheism isn't a belief, isn't a system of connected beliefs, isn't a movement, and that they've arrived at whatever assumptions they do hold independently through reason.

Some atheists also believe that religion is a social construction. That is, they believe that children are born atheists and are later culturally indoctrinated by their parents into theism. That belief has been falsified by child psychologists. (See Justin L. Barrett's, "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs")

I don't mind atheists having faith in such stuff, just don't say such faith represents science.

Mostly it's bunk, but I leave the possibility open, 'cause there's a lot of weirdness in the world and a lot of other people are convinced. Maybe, someone knows something I don't.

My justifications for accepting psi phenomena come from the research done by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the evidence has been available and clear in a scientific context for the last hundred years since the time of William James.

However, I agree that it goes against my own common sense view of what is humanly possible, but then I wonder why do I think I know what is humanly possible? Mostly my common sense is limited by a bias toward Newtonian determinism where we are each of us individuals bumping against each other like balls on a social billiards table. Intellectually, I know that is outdated, but I find it is not easy to think differently.

I think the world is the world whatever we think about it or even if we don't.

Yes. The world is really out there. That's crucial to Berkeley's argument for the existence of God. Although everything is an "idea" for him, the world can't be simply my idea since it is so consistent from day to day and agrees with what others are describing even when I'm not thinking about it. That implies there is a Mind manifesting it, "sustaining" it so to speak.

Quantum physics, assuming the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, provides a scientific justification for Berkeley's philosophical argument. There is no underlying unconscious matter behind the phenomena we experience through our human interface to that reality. And yet our interface is consistent from day to day and we can agree on what we see. That leads to "cosmic consciousness" which sustains the phenomena.

The alternative quantum interpretations try to counter this because it does lead to theism. They are various forms of many worlds, superdeterminism or backward-in-time causality. If one is willing to accept any of these speculations one might as well accept the existence of a God since they all seem, at least to me, more far-fetched than a generic theism.

[HCabret]

HCabret

"Regardless of your position as to whether it not atheism is or is not a religion, there is a large group of people which do classify it as being a religion."

Interestingly no atheist sees it that way! The argument about atheism being a religion is used by some theists to make out that basically atheist are the same as theist, but just with a diffferent set of beliefs. It could be characterised as a retaliotory reaction by religious types to the criticism the receive from atheists. Fundamentally theists work on the notion of 'faith' while atheist do not operate on faith, but 'evidence' (for want of a better word). Many atheists can and do argue that if there was clear and unequivocal evidence for God, there would be no need for faith. In that situation God would be considered a fact.

I did briefly notice yesterday that one of the comments on this forum was along the the line that science/scientists also operate on faith too. I have heard similar arguments essentially saying that when when someone steps on a plane they have faith/belief that they will arrive safely at their destination. IMO that shows a profound misunderstanding of science and its methodology. I do not need to step on board a plane with faith. I can check the the reliability of jet engines, analyse the statistics about the safety of air travel generally or a specific carrier etc. In the light of that I can choose whether or not to board the flight. If there is a life-threatening error in the technology, or mental stability of the pilot, no amount of faith is going to stop the ensuing accident.

Fine you have a beef with dogma - so do I. That said we need to remember that dogma is very common in religions - some would go as far as arguing that it is characteristic of all religions. Science is a methodology and while it has some weaknesses it has given us not only all the technology at our disposal, but also a good understanding of the physical world.

Christians don't think that Christianity is a religion either. I don't understand the phobia of the word "religion". Are people afraid that if the word "religion" is used to describe their beliefs that will therefore be considered equally valid as all other religions?

PostScript. Atheism has literally nothing to do with science whatsoever.

[HCabret]

Some atheists also believe that religion is a social construction. That is, they believe that children are born atheists and are later culturally indoctrinated by their parents into theism. That belief has been falsified by child psychologists. (See Justin L. Barrett's, "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs")

I don't mind atheists having faith in such stuff, just don't say such faith represents science.



My justifications for accepting psi phenomena come from the research done by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the evidence has been available and clear in a scientific context for the last hundred years since the time of William James.

However, I agree that it goes against my own common sense view of what is humanly possible, but then I wonder why do I think I know what is humanly possible? Mostly my common sense is limited by a bias toward Newtonian determinism where we are each of us individuals bumping against each other like balls on a social billiards table. Intellectually, I know that is outdated, but I find it is not easy to think differently.



Yes. The world is really out there. That's crucial to Berkeley's argument for the existence of God. Although everything is an "idea" for him, the world can't be simply my idea since it is so consistent from day to day and agrees with what others are describing even when I'm not thinking about it. That implies there is a Mind manifesting it, "sustaining" it so to speak.

Quantum physics, assuming the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, provides a scientific justification for Berkeley's philosophical argument. There is no underlying unconscious matter behind the phenomena we experience through our human interface to that reality. And yet our interface is consistent from day to day and we can agree on what we see. That leads to "cosmic consciousness" which sustains the phenomena.

The alternative quantum interpretations try to counter this because it does lead to theism. They are various forms of many worlds, superdeterminism or backward-in-time causality. If one is willing to accept any of these speculations one might as well accept the existence of a God since they all seem, at least to me, more far-fetched than a generic theism.

Religion is a social construct. Atheism is a religion. Newborns barely have the ability to eat without choking, let alone being capable of determining whether deities may or may not exist.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific evidence concerning whether any deity exists or not. The question of whether deities exist or not is a philosophical and literary question, not a scientific one.

[mortalterror]

Religion is a social construct. Atheism is a religion. Newborns barely have the ability to eat without choking, let alone being capable of determining whether deities may or may not exist.

Actually, yesno is correct. Religious thinking is innate in our biology the same as language. The particular forms it takes are socially constructed. You can read about it in the book yesno mentioned or other scientific sources such as the psychologist Paul Bloom who's done extensive research on how babies develop.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific evidence concerning whether any deity exists or not. The question of whether deities exist or not is a philosophical and literary question, not a scientific one.

Right on the money there.

[mortalterror]

Some atheists also believe that religion is a social construction. That is, they believe that children are born atheists and are later culturally indoctrinated by their parents into theism. That belief has been falsified by child psychologists. (See Justin L. Barrett's, "Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Beliefs")

I don't mind atheists having faith in such stuff, just don't say such faith represents science.

It's a shame that so many people have substituted science as an absolute authority in place of God without having a particularly profound grasp of either. The most fanatical proponents of scientism are often at odds with the actual science of what they talk about, let alone philosophy or history; but then, some religious people don't understand their religion particularly well either.

My justifications for accepting psi phenomena come from the research done by Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake. I think the evidence has been available and clear in a scientific context for the last hundred years since the time of William James.

I don't know that Dean Radin fellow, but Sheldrake doesn't strike me as a very good scientist. I saw him on the Joe Rogan Podcast a couple of times and his claims were less than credible. He talked about doing that sender receiver card test they were doing at the beginning of Ghostbusters, and he mentioned that the best subject he ever had was his son. What was obviously happening was the same thing that happened in the case of Clever Hans, the horse who did arithmetic. The horse didn't have special mental capacities except for maybe being observant and receptive of it's owner's involuntary cues and body language. The trainer wasn't even aware that he was giving the answers away. A person's child is especially receptive to it's parent's body language as a matter of necessity, which explains that.

Then he had a story about how dogs sense when their owners are coming home. This is a really galling one, when people attribute supernatural qualities to their pets. It's sort of like a displaced hubris. "Well no I'm not psychic but my dog is." Sheldrake leaps past simpler more plausible explanations like the dogs recognizing patterns, routines, or perhaps having a well developed sense of hearing, or smell which would give it advance notice that it's owner was coming home.

He also shared a weird story about trying to project an image to a person in a far off place. The person who was the supposed receiver claimed to get an image of a burned down house or something, which wasn't what the sender was trying to send him, but when they did some digging they found out that a house had once burned down on that spot. So Sheldrake concludes what any rational person would, that his subjects could see backwards in time telepathically over great distances.

I think he might also be the guy who believes that we always know when someone is staring at us. This runs counter to plain sense. I had a friend of mine silently follow me for miles as a joke. He walked a couple of paces behind me the whole way but I was too absorbed in my own thoughts to notice him. Then there are stalkers who hide in people's bushes, peeping toms, snipers, cops who tail people, etc. A quick consideration of anyone's life will probably yield at least one example of a time they were observed and didn't know it.

The one thing he mentioned for psychic phenomena which I can't really poke holes in is the case of a group of people focusing on a number and effecting a random number generator to be less random. I've got no idea what's going on there.

But like I said before, I don't put psychic ability out of the realm of possibility, I just don't think Sheldrake is the man to prove it.

However, I agree that it goes against my own common sense view of what is humanly possible, but then I wonder why do I think I know what is humanly possible? Mostly my common sense is limited by a bias toward Newtonian determinism where we are each of us individuals bumping against each other like balls on a social billiards table. Intellectually, I know that is outdated, but I find it is not easy to think differently.

That is the challenge isn't it, trying to perceive the world objectively when our minds aren't built for objectivity? Try to straighten them as we might, our thoughts run down the old easy curving paths. Sometimes I wonder what's possible in a universe with quantum physics, or if I'm like a square trying to make sense of a sphere, understanding less than half of what I see. We just don't have the sensory equipment or the processing power to comprehend it all.

[YesNo]

I don't know that Dean Radin fellow, but Sheldrake doesn't strike me as a very good scientist. I saw him on the Joe Rogan Podcast a couple of times and his claims were less than credible. He talked about doing that sender receiver card test they were doing at the beginning of Ghostbusters, and he mentioned that the best subject he ever had was his son. What was obviously happening was the same thing that happened in the case of Clever Hans, the horse who did arithmetic. The horse didn't have special mental capacities except for maybe being observant and receptive of it's owner's involuntary cues and body language. The trainer wasn't even aware that he was giving the answers away. A person's child is especially receptive to it's parent's body language as a matter of necessity, which explains that.

Then he had a story about how dogs sense when their owners are coming home. This is a really galling one, when people attribute supernatural qualities to their pets. It's sort of like a displaced hubris. "Well no I'm not psychic but my dog is." Sheldrake leaps past simpler more plausible explanations like the dogs recognizing patterns, routines, or perhaps having a well developed sense of hearing, or smell which would give it advance notice that it's owner was coming home.

Here's a video about that dog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA5wAm2c01w

I don't see this as a supernatural quality, but I don't have an explanation. Of course I am looking for an explanation within models that might be faulty.

He also shared a weird story about trying to project an image to a person in a far off place. The person who was the supposed receiver claimed to get an image of a burned down house or something, which wasn't what the sender was trying to send him, but when they did some digging they found out that a house had once burned down on that spot. So Sheldrake concludes what any rational person would, that his subjects could see backwards in time telepathically over great distances.

The remote viewing experiments have the problem of being too vague in my view. There is too much subjectivity in what constitutes a successful event. So I agree with you on this.

That doesn't mean that some people talented in this way can't do such things. And that's my main interest. What can unusually talented people actually do? Can they really levitate, for example? What does that say about gravitation? I don't think any of it is supernatural. It is just the way nature is, if it is possible.

I think he might also be the guy who believes that we always know when someone is staring at us. This runs counter to plain sense. I had a friend of mine silently follow me for miles as a joke. He walked a couple of paces behind me the whole way but I was too absorbed in my own thoughts to notice him. Then there are stalkers who hide in people's bushes, peeping toms, snipers, cops who tail people, etc. A quick consideration of anyone's life will probably yield at least one example of a time they were observed and didn't know it.

Yes, I recall something similar from him. However, these experiences don't have to happen consistently. They just have to happen enough to reject chance. Some people may be more sensitive to this than others.

What I find interesting is what this implies about the world. If there were such an influence, then the viewer is projecting something out or disturbing a field that the one being watched can potentially detect if the person is sensitive enough to it.

It occurs to me that even the concept of "disturbing a field" is just a conceptual model of what reality might be. The models seem to work and so they have use-value until something better comes along.

The one thing he mentioned for psychic phenomena which I can't really poke holes in is the case of a group of people focusing on a number and effecting a random number generator to be less random. I've got no idea what's going on there.

These are the kind of experiments that I recall Radin having performed. I don't know if he or someone else did those where a random number generator was made less random. I'm off-and-on going through Radin's "Supernormal" where he examines Patanjali's "Yoga Sutras" and attempts to show what science can validate about the unusual powers discussed in the third part of that ancient text.

But like I said before, I don't put psychic ability out of the realm of possibility, I just don't think Sheldrake is the man to prove it.

I was impressed by Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion". One of his ten points was to question whether physical constants are as constant as a number such as pi, that is to all decimal places. If they weren't constant, just like pi, then the mathematical models of universe would not have the predictive power that we assumed they had. They would be only approximations. We can still use them to a certain number of decimal places. People, including myself, confuse the model with reality, so questioning this aspect of the model is worthwhile. Most people don't even think to consider it.

I suspect "skeptics" are trying to tarnish Sheldrake's reputation in sometimes inappropriate ways. Here is Sheldrake complaining about James Randi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB3SAD-gHTc

[zslsal]

Nothing can give meaning to existence. Talking about meaning is logically futile.

[YesNo]

Nothing can give meaning to existence. Talking about meaning is logically futile.

I agree that no "thing" can give meaning to existence. One needs subjectivity to assign meaning and to be able to recognize the meaning. Things, by assumption, do not have subjectivity.

Consider the meaning of a word. Does a computer know what a word means that has been encoded as some text on its hard drive? I don't think so, no matter how well it is able to manipulate the projection of that meaning onto a text. Just because a computer can't recognize or assign meaning says nothing about our abilities. Because of our subjectivity, we aren't reducible to computers.

When someone says something is "logically" this or that, I assume there is an underlying logical fallacy going on if human experience shows the opposite to be true. For example, do we have free will? We experience enough free will for a legal system to assign responsibility to us as intentional agents, but some people who take mathematical determinism too literally try to logically claim we do not have free will. Which should I believe, the empirical evidence or questionable metaphysics? I go with the empirical evidence and assume there is a fallacy in the metaphysics that I may or may not choose to try to uncover.

[YALASH]

.....Anyway, I'd like to know why religious people think that religion gives meaning to their life and I'd like to hear some non-circular arguments.

Peace be on you.
According to my understating through Ahmadiyya-Islam, The purpose of life is to worship God, and this worship should be such that one should be good to creature of God too. Then expect good place in Hereafter.


If you notice, Salaat, the Islamic Prayers [5 daily, and some extra], all begin with declaration of greatness of God, and end with words "assalamo aliakum wa rahmatullah" while the person turns face to right and then left uttering these words. Their meaning: assalamo (peace) aliakum (be on you) wa (and) rahmatullah (mercy of Allah). The lesson is come back from the Presence / Court / Threshold of Lord with gift of peace for humanity whether rightest or leftist to your creed.


Unfortunately, many pray but create unrest after offering Salaat. This is promised weakness. The reforms are underway. But it is different subject.

[YesNo]

That's a nice prayer, YALASH. I also liked how your religion views hell as a temporary hospital stay. Apparently change can occur in the afterlife.

[tblue818]

Believers often say that you need religion because life would be pointless otherwise. But how exactly does religion give meaning to life? Looking at the 'great' monotheistic religions (I don't know enough about the others) it seems that they mainly tell people how to live their lives, i.e. they give them rules about family life, how to worship God etc. But that's not really what I would call 'meaning' or 'purpose'. E.g. the purpose of a pair of scissors is to cut things, i.e. an action outside the scissors themselves. We wouldn't normally say that the purpose of scissors is to have two blades and a handle with two holes for stickin your finers in and a screw in the middle for the blades to open etc (= rules for a good pair of scissors). Whereas rules for a 'religious' life do not refer to any purpose outside life itself... unless maybe you assume that sticking to those rules will make people happy, thus turning their life from a mere life into a happy one. But I don't remember the Bible etc. promising anyone happiness.

So is it supposed to be the promise of a life after death that gives 'meaning' to this life?
Other arguments seem kind of circular to me, e.g. 'The purpose of life is to please God.' So what?
Anyway, I'd like to know why religious people think that religion gives meaning to their life and I'd like to hear some non-circular arguments.

For me, it wasn't so much as "Man's Search for Meaning" (Frankl), but my search for the *purpose* of living. What was the Point of life? Why was I born in the first place? Into a world where the only time I could be 'happy' was if I blocked out the utter misery of so many - and wait to see if the unspeakable miseries would someday show up in my life.

I became an agnostic at 16, which lasted until I was 45 when 'misery peaked'. Whenever I got close to suicide, a particular thought would always show up, "If you commit suicide, you are guaranteed to *never* discover the Point to being here." That thought kept me trudging along, more than once. Where to look for the Answer? I had rejected the Rolodex of beliefs that one could adopt. I wanted to Know, for myself.

Turned out that St. Paul holds the keys to the Point (1 Cor. 15:12-19). So many religious people speak of that passage as referring to the physical death and resurrection of Jesus. What the passage actually speaks of is the Resurrection *within each of us*. The Experience of Truth Itself.

There is nothing "narrow" about a path that only requires 'believing'.

P.S. One of the great insights into agnosticism, for me, was coming to see that the definition was: "I could no longer believe in the Goodness of God."