Exactly HOW is religion supposed to give meaning to life?

[Varenne Rodin]

This is a serious question. No sarcasm intended. Cat means feline, do you think that means it's religious?

In Judaism there really isn't a sharp divide between culture, religion, and ethnicity. Of course, there are examples that challenge this observation like say a black christian American converting to Judaism, in which case he wouldn't be ethnically Jewish, but this observation holds for the most part for most of the Jewish population. I would suggest culture itself is meaningful; it's a lens upon which we view the world around us, even directs how we decide which values should matter the most to us. I think equating religion with God belief is a mistake of atheists. I can remove God from the equation and Judaism would still be meaningful to me. Even the Bible would still be extremely meaningful to me.

I think issues are getting mixed up here. There wasn't a question of trivial things having meaning in day to day life. The big question is, why are we here? What is the point of all of this? What is the "meaning" of life as a whole? It was first stated that religious people want to convince non-believers that life has NO meaning without belief in God. So, just a reminder, the question is: What does religion suggest the singular meaning of life is? To serve God is not enough of an answer. If religion has the market cornered on life's true meaning, what is it?

I think it would be an easy question to answer if Christians knew the answer.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think issues are getting mixed up here. There wasn't a question of trivial things having meaning in day to day life. The big question is, why are we here? What is the point of all of this? What is the "meaning" of life as a whole? It was first stated that religious people want to convince non-believers that life has NO meaning without belief in God. So, just a reminder, the question is: What does religion suggest the singular meaning of life is? To serve God is not enough of an answer. If religion has the market cornered on life's true meaning, what is it?

I think it would be an easy question to answer if Christians knew the answer.

It's not whether Christians know the answer, it is whether those who don't see things spiritually would understand the answer.

[Varenne Rodin]

So non-spiritual people cannot understand what spiritual people don't understand. In other words, no one understands the meaning of life. Religious people simply have a desire to believe they know a secret answer. Non-religious people have a desire to be content with not knowing. Both longings are understandable, but there's never a need to tell someone their life is empty without god.

[BienvenuJDC]

So non-spiritual people cannot understand what spiritual people don't understand. In other words, no one understands the meaning of life. Religious people simply have a desire to believe they know a secret answer. Non-religious people have a desire to be content with not knowing. Both longings are understandable, but there's never a need to tell someone their life is empty without god.

I don't believe that is anything close to what I said. It seems that you don't have a desire to understand. That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given. If you were open to try to understand someone's beliefs instead of wanting to be critical, then you may at least understand that someone can find meaning in something that you don't.

[Whifflingpin]

"What meaning do those portions of life have? By your reasoning, absolutely everything is religious."

I was not reasoning. I was simply making a definition, from which it might be possible to answer the original question without going too far in a circle, or at least to go in a circle with Sleepywitch on the inside.
By my definition, everything based on the assumption that life has a value is starting from a religious base. Religion is not necessarily some mumbo-jumbo or some fancy, or some screen against the fear of death. It is simply an assertion, in the absence of any particular reason or proof, that there is an "order of things" and that order is preferable to chaos.

Those who accept such views may leave the nature of such order as unknowable or irrelevant, and elect to "act in their physical world according to physical cause and effect." As Alexander Pope wisely said, "The proper study of mankind is Man."

(end of my answer to Varenne Rodin; the following is an attempt to answer the OP)

Others reckon that orders of things do not occur by accident, but only by design. Absence of proof about origins or purpose of the order of things is not relevant, because the actual existence of orders of things is not provable either. So, people go questing to know what it might all mean, without even the means to know what it all is. Mostly they project a sort of super-human view out into the universe - which, given our place within our world, might be mistaken but it is not laughable.
In any case, trying to answer the original question, the great religions attempt to give meaning to life by answering the questions "What are the source and purpose of life itself and what is our place in it?" The monotheistic religions postulate a single designer of the universe and seek to read from that universe the intentions of its creator. Furthering the creator's is the definition of good, and hindering those intentions is the definition of bad.

Obviously, and I do not think the argument is circular, since the concept of the creator arises out of the perceived "orders of things," order and harmony are seen the creator's attributes or intentions. Promoting these is therefore good, in general.
Unfortunately, humans do not have the long-term vision of the creator, and tend to think that a social order that has lasted more than (insert your own figure according to your own age) is the "order of things." So the great religions have a tendency to veer to conservatism and, at times, repression.
At other times, of course, they are great forces for change and advancement. Scientific study has largely been promoted, for example, in the quest for knowledge of the universe and its meaning. Social advance has often been driven by the moral implications of religious belief.

But it's late, so the summary is - the universe appears to be more purposeful than chaotic; the great religions seek to identify the purpose; the function of all sentient beings of good will is to promote the purpose where possible.

[Varenne Rodin]

But it's late, so the summary is - the universe appears to be more purposeful than chaotic; the great religions seek to identify the purpose; the function of all sentient beings of good will is to promote the purpose where possible.

Science seeks to identify, religion says it already has.

I don't believe that is anything close to what I said. It seems that you don't have a desire to understand. That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given. If you were open to try to understand someone's beliefs instead of wanting to be critical, then you may at least understand that someone can find meaning in something that you don't.

The answers that I'm "missing" are based on esoteric beliefs, and that's why I don't have any interest in attempting to force my analytical brain to feel faith in the unproven. As for understanding beliefs.... I was a Christian when I was a child. I fully and completely believed the information given me by church and family. I had "faith." So please stop attempting to insult my ability to understand very basic ideas.

I also understand that a deity is a possible thing, just not in the exact ways men have concocted. If I can accept the possibility that there is a deity, and you have such a hard time with me saying that there's been no evidence of one, which of us lacks understanding?

"That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given." No answer has been given. You obviously think me very stupid, to suggest I wouldn't understand an answer if given a legitimate one. If you think I'm such a lackwit, you really should refrain from wasting the effort to address me. I'm sorry your god didn't grant you the wisdom to convince others of your argument. Bye.

[Stanislaw]

To be ethical one must go against God.

please give me some more details, I'm curios if you have a compelling argument... or just finished watching V for Vendetta .

The answers that I'm "missing" are based on esoteric beliefs, and that's why I don't have any interest in attempting to force my analytical brain to feel faith in the unproven. As for understanding beliefs.... I was a Christian when I was a child. I fully and completely believed the information given me by church and family. I had "faith." So please stop attempting to insult my ability to understand very basic ideas.

I also understand that a deity is a possible thing, just not in the exact ways men have concocted. If I can accept the possibility that there is a deity, and you have such a hard time with me saying that there's been no evidence of one, which of us lacks understanding?

I think you have struck the proverbial nail square on the head. A true scientist should be agnostic... anything is theoretically possible/impossible until a proof is found.

The meaning of life is something that we just don't quite understand yet. Most likely due to our limited technology, we don't have the capacity to test any particular theory fully and develop a law. Personally I think the question is a red hearing. A puzzle that can never be fully solved but is perfect for distracting from important issues/problems. (think Capt. Kirk and his fuzzy computer logic and his asking the poor poor machine to solve for Pi)

To me the religious concept that we exist to worship a deity is as absurd as the secular concept that humanity exists for no reason whatsoever.

Perhaps the question is more important than the answer.

[Varenne Rodin]

Thank you, Stanislaw.

[BienvenuJDC]

"That is why you'd miss the answer if it were given." No answer has been given. You obviously think me very stupid, to suggest I wouldn't understand an answer if given a legitimate one. If you think I'm such a lackwit, you really should refrain from wasting the effort to address me. I'm sorry your god didn't grant you the wisdom to convince others of your argument. Bye.

It's not that I think that you're a nitwit. I personally find comfort in knowing that God is there to talk to. I believe in the spiritual life that follows this one, and that it will be far better than what is here. From the things that you have said before, I think that you don't believe in those things, and therefore you'd like that they were foolishness. If that is the case, then you won't understand.

[Paulclem]

The Buddhist view of the meaning of a being's life is the ending of suffering and the gaining of permanent happiness.

The religion teaches a skillful response to the world in order that the being may become calmer, more compassionate and happier.

Often this is counter to our initial impulses - responding with anger etc and postulates the view that a mind can be trained away from negative resonses to positive ones.

The benefit of this is that the person benefits by not creating further negative karma, but creating positive Karma which improves their conditions in the short and/or long run.

Ending suffering and attaining a permanent happiness for all = the meaning of life

[mtpspur]

I dislike using the word religion because it implies more going on then there is in my life. At this stage in my life I consider myself a very flawed Christian (my sins are great and of no merit here) who happens to believe the Bible can give meaning to life and direction for it. I try to have an attitude that I do NOT know it all nor can I but I can know enough - for now. At its simplest form religion should reveal something of the Creator to the creature for the blessing of the creature and the Glory of the creator. My faith is a simple one--but can consume a lifetime plumbing the depths. This entry was very hard to write in order to be concise and respectful of those that do not perhaps share an appreciation for the Bible that I do.

[Red-Headed]

"existentialist notions of reality & meaning."
Far too complicated for me, but, I think if you claimed that a stone was real, that would not be a religious statement - if you claimed that the stone meant something, then it would be, by my previous definition, of course.

Now I've fed the mugwi ...

Paley's Watch analogy aside, I agree with Varenne about ethics not really needing any religious basis & can be based on logic. That reminds me ... I'm going to have to re-read Kant.

[WyattGwyon]

"Ethics doesn't even have to be dependent on religion"

As I said, it's a question of definition. Ethics certainly does not have to be dependent on a belief in God, or any kind of formalised belief system.

It is however dependent on a belief that there is some meaning or purpose in existence. This is a belief that must be held, if it is held, without any proof, out of nothing. There is no way of coming to such a belief by way of reason or logic.

I would say that a person who believed that life had a purpose had taken a religious stance, and might or might not go on to consider what that purpose could be.

Meaning isn't something one begs and tweezes from the fabric of existence by the supplications of logic. It is something one imposes upon it! It is not some found object of passive belief. It is something one creates for oneself. That act of creation is the primary life function of a sentient being. You must create meaning yourself or someone else's meanings will devour you. Religion is the wolf in the forest waiting for those unarmed with their own.

[cl154576]

By my definition, everything based on the assumption that life has a value is starting from a religious base. Religion is not necessarily some mumbo-jumbo or some fancy, or some screen against the fear of death. It is simply an assertion, in the absence of any particular reason or proof, that there is an "order of things" and that order is preferable to chaos.

Isn't that rather extreme? Most of the people I know are moral, upright atheists who find meaning in serving the community, appreciating small moments, taking care of their family, etc. One needn't believe in a deity to think it is good to be kind to others. For each person, regardless of all else, one's life has whatever meaning one gives it.
I am quite involved in some musical communities, and many of the musicians I know are very spiritual despite being atheist. One does not need to believe in God to feel joy at discovering beauty.

As for the original question – I think people were afraid. They wanted some explanation for the natural phenomena they saw (e.g. volcanoes, thunder) and they did not understand enough about science to come up with more realistic conclusions. Also, it can be frightening to some to imagine that mankind could be an accident, entirely alone in the world, with no special purpose or meaning as a species. I think that's where some of the difference comes in. Religious people are able to give more of a purpose to mankind in general, while non-religious people give meaning to their own lives.

I understand how some people take comfort in the idea of a benevolent protector and Creator. I simply don't believe because I don't wish to. I prefer to feel a connection between myself and the dead geniuses whose work I encounter, rather than a supernatural being who has power over me.

[G L Wilson]

Isn't that rather extreme? Most of the people I know are moral, upright atheists who find meaning in serving the community, appreciating small moments, taking care of their family, etc. One needn't believe in a deity to think it is good to be kind to others. For each person, regardless of all else, one's life has whatever meaning one gives it.
I am quite involved in some musical communities, and many of the musicians I know are very spiritual despite being atheist. One does not need to believe in God to feel joy at discovering beauty.

As for the original question – I think people were afraid. They wanted some explanation for the natural phenomena they saw (e.g. volcanoes, thunder) and they did not understand enough about science to come up with more realistic conclusions. Also, it can be frightening to some to imagine that mankind could be an accident, entirely alone in the world, with no special purpose or meaning as a species. I think that's where some of the difference comes in. Religious people are able to give more of a purpose to mankind in general, while non-religious people give meaning to their own lives.

I understand how some people take comfort in the idea of a benevolent protector and Creator. I simply don't believe because I don't wish to. I prefer to feel a connection between myself and the dead geniuses whose work I encounter, rather than a supernatural being who has power over me.

The big guy in the sky is a powerful enemy, cl154576, be watchful of your thoughts. We're all human, cl154576, it's just that some are more humane than others. (If I was religious, I could put you down right now like a cold turkey.) Analysis must come before free expression. It sounds like a contradiction and spontaneity is not to be dismissed, but a thought before speaking is better than a slap with a wet fish any day.