I was once a nihilist, in the aftermath of 9-11, and in my disillusionment with religion, but it was too depressing living my life devoid of meaning and purpose.
I couldn’t remain long in that smoldering black hole once filled by faith in a loving God.
So I searched wide and far for a sturdy lifeline that could use to pull myself out of that downward spiral. I read biographies of wise men who accomplished great things in their lives, without god. I read about the deist thinkers responsible for the America’s experiment in democracy, Paine, Jefferson and Franklin. They chose to protect religion mainly because they saw it as a force for good in society. They all had experiences with being robbed by amoral men who were unrestricted by any sort of ‘morality’ or religious obligation to honor their word. But I really didn’t see the practical need to invoke a non-interventionist creator, since evolution gave us a superior explanation of our origins.

I heard an interview with the author of, “The History of Doubt” on a radio show called ‘On Being’

https://onbeing.org/programs/jennifer-michael-hecht-a-history-of-doubt/

She spoke admiringly of Stoicism and Epicureanism of the Hellenistic Greeks. I bought her book and read about all the great philosophers who had developed wholistic world views that did not rely upon a personal God. What really appealed to me most was a combination of Stoicism and Epicureanism. Both of those schools of philosophy were the main competitors of Christianity at the time it was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire. They were all shut down after that, because they were seen as the greatest threat to the emperors newly consolidated power. He saw how the Pope was able to get Christians to pay tithes far more eagerly than they paid their taxes, so he co-opted Christianity in order to get his subjects to pay their taxes and it’s been working great towards that end ever since.
Like Napoleon said, ‘Religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich.’
What appealed to me about Epicurus was the fact that he was so far ahead of his time in developing non-deterministic atomic theory, 300 yrs before Christ, along with the Law of Reciprocity (Later called the Golden Rule) and his Four Part Cure for what ails us.
1. Do not fear the Gods, for they are not real.
2. Do not fear death or pain
3. What is good in life is easily obtained
4. What is horrible is easily avoided.

Then I read the ‘New Atheist’ responses to 9-11, by the ‘Four Riders of the Apocalypse’ Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and Hitchins.
I was particularly impressed by Dawkins first chapter in his book, ‘The God Delusion’, ‘A Deeply Religious, Non-believer’ where he expresses his faith in the religion of Einstein. He never names it, but I read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Einstein, where he details Einstein’s pantheist beliefs.
The idea of a non-personal god, nature, that does not intervene in human affairs, appealed to me most and gave my life meaning and purpose.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2021 06:30PM by schrodingerscat.

" If you are not a nihilist, what gives your life intrinsic meaning/purpose?"

A tasty sandwich, the love of my wife and children, the anticipation of the pending birth of my first grandchild, my dog, discovering new truths, the smart posters here on RFM (you know who you are), helping others rid their minds of falsehoods, etc.

HH =)

I skipped over the word "not" in the subject line. My bad. I am a nihilist. Shouldn't have responded. Still enjoy a good sandwich though.


HH =)

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I skipped over the word "not" in the subject line.
> My bad. I am a nihilist. Shouldn't have
> responded. Still enjoy a good sandwich though.

That sandwich might make you an acolyte of Epicureanism arguing that pleasure was the chief good in life.

I think SC would approve of your reply.

Accompanying my two youngest kids as a chaperone on a school outing to Sea World finally introduced a porpoise into my life.

The Sea World employee said the porpoise was a gay male . . .

Weird, huh?

"Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death." Auntie Mame

Searching for meaning is a dog chasing his tail.

Appreciation will get you what you want.

Cats. Cats give my life intrinsic purpose. And dogs. Cats and dogs.

The purpose of life is to slap labels on everything indicating what their purpose is in life.

I bet you go through a lot of PostIt notes.

Haha ha. Too good BoJ

Will The Cat ever stop looking for a better label?

Stay tuned for The Cat's never-ending posts regarding his humble recognition of his own greatness.




"If only you could be what you check out of the library."

--Magna "Maggie" Carta, The Wild & Wooly Witch of Endor

ziller thanks jesus that OPie is finding religion ~

Right on !

COMMENT: Dawkins' first chapter in the God Delusion--"A Deeply Religious Nonbeliever" demonstrates that he neither understands religious faith, or Einstein's personal religious views.

Here is an example:

"A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists. It has no connection with supernatural belief." (p.11)

COMMENT: Of course, no scientist believes in the supernatural, if by "supernatural" one means, "beyond the totality of natural law as may exist in the universe." However, no theist believes in the supernatural either in this sense. For most theists, God is a quite "natural" entity (nature allows for her real existence) and operates within natural law. If God can manipulate nature through 'miracles' it is only because nature is "naturally" subject to his will. The question becomes whether the natural laws that science has uncovered exactly meet the natural laws of the universe itself, or on the other hand, whether the totally of such laws of the universe encompass God and his will. Dawkins' entire discussion as "supernatural" vs. science is a strawman. And this is what his whole first chapter is about. Many scientists, including Einstein, believe in God, not as a supernatural entity or phenomena, but nonetheless in some transcendent sense.

Dawkins states, quoting Julian Baggini:

"What most atheists do believe is that although there is only one kind of stuff in the universe and it is physical, out of this stuff come minds, beauty, emotions, moral values --in short the full gamut of phenomena that gives richness to human life."

This is where the rubber meets the road between religion and materialist science, and where Dawkins is totally clueless. Dawkins thinks that Einstein--and many of the other early 20th century physicists--subscribed to this scientific materialist thesis; i.e. that there is nothing but the physical, and that all of their "awe of nature" is explainable solely within a materialist assumption that includes only their physical bodies and brains; i.e. that there is nothing transcendent in nature itself that speaks to the human 'soul.'

Is this Einstein's view? Remarkably--but not surprisingly, Dawkins leaves out the most important of Einstein's comments in this regard:

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds -- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 11)

Notice the statement: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds" is manifestly a belief in the transcendent!

Dawkins leaves quotes like these from his account, because he is lazy about a serious study of his sources, and disingenuous in his motives. Nearly everything Dawkins says in "The God Delusion" demonstrates his total misunderstanding of religion; and total misunderstanding of religious scientists--whether such scientists have only a vague, but nonetheless transcendent, mystical view of nature; or have a more traditional faith in God.

Oh and if Einstein was a pantheist, or a deist, in any sense of these terms, he had a transcendent view of nature!

So, moral of this response: Read Chapter One of the God Delusion more carefully, and then shelve the entire book as the rhetorical nonsense that it is!

Excellent, thank you.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So, moral of this response: Read Chapter One of
> the God Delusion more carefully, and then shelve
> the entire book as the rhetorical nonsense that it
> is!

Rhetorical nonsense is the right phrase. One never did need to be a scientist or even all that bright to see that books by Dawkins or Pinker or Krauss or Harris or etc were pure rhetoric, designed to convince you of something right from the getgo, damn proportion, evidence and proper argument.

There have always been big books of BS that nonetheless garner an outsized portion of the public’s mind. I posted about one such book from the Forties about women and sex.

Hi Human. You're welcome. It's nice to get a "thank you" from time to time. As you know, I usually inspire stunned silence or an occasional sound bite pontification. Then I wait a couple of weeks, and the same ole nonsense resurfaces. Oh well, such is "recovery" I guess. After Mormonism, people need confirmation that their anti-Mormon and anti-religion anger is rationally based, so they unthinkingly let 'science' become their new religion, and people like Richard Dawkins their new prophet spokespersons.

While I am at it, let me add another comment which I think you, and perhaps others, might appreciate:

One cannot understand religion by dealing only with evolutionary biology, neuroscience, philosophy and history. Fundamentally, you need psychology; i.e. you need to address religious experience! But not any materialist-based psychology will do. You have to come to grips with the transcendent nature of religious experience, in all its contexts and varieties, *and* how such experiences generate profound religious faith. It is quite an indictment on psychology and science generally that William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, written in 1902, is still the best general book on this subject. (But see, William P. Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience.)

Of the books I have read by atheist-oriented or secular authors trying to understand religion, they all either miss the phenomenological mark entirely, or explain away religious experience in materialist terms. Of course, this is exactly what Dawkins does in The God Delusion, while falsely and disingenuously equating genuine transcendent religious experience with the feeling of "awe" or appreciation of nature. (Of course, such "awe" is at bottom nothing more than the brain playing its "religious" tricks; but heh, sit back and enjoy those marvelous neuron firings as you "get in touch" with nature!)

But, then, if you turn to philosophers of religion who are theists themselves, e.g. Richard Swinburne or Alvin Plantinga, you often get a host of baseless (often wild) speculation, logical errors, and/or anti-science rhetoric and apologetics. So, it often feels like a no win situation.

Oh well, always good to hear from you. Take care.

"I recognize that it is way too simplistic, but I use the measuring stick of "how can I get laid?" to measure/analyze all the antics humans practice on one another."

--Lady Gethsemane LaRochelle, Huntress & Ballerina to the Court of Louis II

Very funny. Thank you for that reminder not to take myself too seriously!

What is perhaps funnier, is that this comment is not that far from the explanations of human nature offered by evolutionary psychology; just add, get laid and survive.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After Mormonism, people need confirmation that their
> anti-Mormon and anti-religion anger is rationally
> based, so they unthinkingly let 'science' become
> their new religion, and people like Richard
> Dawkins their new prophet spokespersons.

Yes, thank you.

Lately I’ve been wrestling with a little volume by Galen Strawson called “Things That Bother Me”. Why, only heaven knows. I’d much rather be puzzling over Clarice Lispector or something like, but, you know…

I wish I could quote the entirety of a bit from Strawson called “The Silliest Claim”. Much fun, especially in context with a lot we’ve seen on RfM over the years. I’ll content myself with quoting the first two paragraphs and let you guess at the rest (maybe it’s on-line somewhere):

“WHAT IS THE SILLIEST CLAIM that has ever been made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience. Next to this denial—I’ll call it “the Denial”—every known religious belief is only a little less sensible than the belief that grass is green.

“The Denial began in the twentieth century and it continues today, especially among philosophers of mind, neuroscientists, and workers in artificial intelligence and information technology. How did it happen? I think it had two main causes. The first was the rise of the behaviorist approach in psychology. The second was the general triumph of a wholly naturalistic approach to reality. Both were good things in their way, but both spiraled out of control—and gave birth to the Great Silliness. I want to consider them in turn, and then say something rather gloomy about a third, deeper, darker cause.”

—Galen Strawson—
—Things That Bother Me: Death, Freedom, the Self, Etc.—


Okay, just one more thing, the thing that brought Strawsn’s essay to mind while reading your post:

He quotes from Francis Bacon (1620]:

“Once the human mind has favored certain views, it pulls everything else into agreement with and support for them. Should they be outweighed by more powerful countervailing considerations, it either fails to notice these, or scorns them, or makes fine distinctions in order to neutralize and so reject them . . . thereby preserving untouched the authority of its previous position.”

The intellectual hubris of some RfMers is merely the mirror reflection of some mormons’ religious hubris. Recovery is partly about checking that.

Okay. I’ve a few devilled eggs to eat. Cheers.

Well, the definition of "intrinsic" is: "belonging to a thing by its very nature." So the intrinsic meaning/purpose of my life would be found within my life. Yours would be found within yours. But it seems like you're looking for extrinsic meaning/purpose -- something outside your life to tell you what your life is about, or to at least tell you it's okay to go with what you determine to be intrinsic.

“Detrinsic”?

“Retrotrinsic”?

“Omnitrinsic”!!

Ridiculinsic!

Exactly.
Intrinsic, as in, natural.
It exists naturally.
You didn’t just imagine it into being.
OTOH, People say colors don’t really exist in reality, it’s just how your mind interprets different frequencies of energy.
But if that’s true, why do cameras see color the same way we do?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...why do cameras see color the same way we do?


Because we fiddled with the chemistry, then the electronics, until we got the results that match what we see.

Meanwhile there are ultraviolet, infrared, and any number of other colors that cameras, and some animals, can apprehend. The same is true of sounds: other sentient beings perceive all sorts of ranges, and hence things, that we can't; and there are sounds and colors beyond the perception of any organic entity.

Nature is not limited to what we perceive with our five senses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2021 10:33PM by Lot's Wife.

What is it like to be a bat?

OTOH, People say colors don’t really exist in reality, it’s just how your mind interprets different frequencies of energy.
But if that’s true, why do cameras see color the same way we do?

COMMENT: Color visual perception (as well as any other type of visual perception) requires a sensory visual system that somehow triggers conscious visual experience. Cameras do not "see" color, or anything else. They are merely clever human artifacts. They are not conscious. Digital cameras are programed to digitally represent the electromagnetic radiation entering the camera lens as reflected from the environment. Due to this technology, we humans can see and copy (or transfer) the images being represented. It is similar with TV screens and computer monitors: Electromagnetic radiation is converted into a digital image through a technology expressly developed for human sense perception.

So, when taking a selfie, your camera is not staring back at you, and silently thinking, "Smile." Thank God!

Because for me, one of the things that I've come to understand over the years is that the degree to which any tragedy affects people is often tempered by their distance from the tragedy.

For me, I was working in Washington, DC. We could see the smoke from the Pentagon from the windows on the other side of our building. We fled DC in a daze of orderly panic.

A lot of what happened that day touched how I experienced life and living in DC over the years. But I was already becoming unmoored from Mormonism before 9/11, and I would have left the church eventually anyway, regardless of that event.


And it has surprised me over the years, that for many people who weren't in the northeast, 9/11 was tragic, but it wasn't life-altering. It had been a disruption to their lives, but they didn't feel it as viscerally.

I lost my job a month after the event when my work fearing economic fallout decided to let go of contract workers. I didn't have another steady job for almost a year.

And 9/11 left me deeply afraid of flying. It took me years after the event to fly again - and when I did, I chose to do so on another 9/11 just to show to myself that I had overcome the impact it had on me.


So unironically, I wonder what made that specific event affect you so deeply.

Tyson

My intrinsic meaning/purpose in life is to not waste time trying to define my intrinsic meaning/purpose in life.

So far that's worked out well.

For this particular thread I'm a nihilist. Other threads I'm not.

I think that makes you a dinihilist.

If a nihilist doesn't believe in anything, how can a person believe they are a nihilist? ;)

I think it used as an indictment more than a self descriptor.

How about the aspiration of being a reahilist?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea of a non-personal god, nature, that does not
> intervene in human affairs, appealed to me most and gave my life meaning and purpose, thankfully.

Now wait a minute, you did happen to meet thee.

Being with my girlfriend. Experiencing love again.

Touching. Here's to your love.

I thought the Four Horses of the Apocalypse conversation rather stupid, and dangerous in context of the time it took place.

I do remember Hitchens, however, referencing a rather good poem by one of his favourites, Philip Larkin:



Church Going

Once I am sure there’s nothing going on
I step inside, letting the door thud shut.
Another church: matting, seats, and stone,
And little books; sprawlings of flowers, cut
For Sunday, brownish now; some brass and stuff
Up at the holy end; the small neat organ;
And a tense, musty, unignorable silence,
Brewed God knows how long. Hatless, I take off
My cycle-clips in awkward reverence,

Move forward, run my hand around the font.
From where I stand, the roof looks almost new –
Cleaned, or restored? Someone would know: I don’t.
Mounting the lectern, I peruse a few
Hectoring large-scale verses, and pronounce
‘Here endeth’ much more loudly than I’d meant.
The echoes sn.igger briefly. Back at the door
I sign the book, donate an Irish sixpence,
Reflect the place was not worth stopping for.

Yet stop I did: in fact I often do,
And always end much at a loss like this,
Wondering what to look for; wondering, too,
When churches fall completely out of use
What we shall turn them into, if we shall keep
A few cathedrals chronically on show,
Their parchment, plate and pyx in locked cases,
And let the rest rent-free to rain and sheep.
Shall we avoid them as unlucky places?

Or, after dark, will dubious women come
To make their children touch a particular stone;
Pick simples for a cancer; or on some
Advised night see walking a dead one?
Power of some sort or other will go on
In games, in riddles, seemingly at random;
But superstition, like belief, must die,
And what remains when disbelief has gone?
Grass, weedy pavement, brambles, buttress, sky,

A shape less recognisable each week,
A purpose more obscure. I wonder who
Will be the last, the very last, to seek
This place for what it was; one of the crew
That tap and jot and know what rood-lofts were?
Some ruin-bibber, randy for antique,
Or Christmas-addict, counting on a whiff
Of gown-and-bands and organ-pipes and myrrh?
Or will he be my representative,

Bored, uninformed, knowing the ghostly silt
Dispersed, yet tending to this cross of ground
Through suburb scrub because it held unspilt
So long and equably what since is found
Only in separation – marriage, and birth,
And death, and thoughts of these – for which was built
This special shell? For, though I’ve no idea
What this accoutred frowsty barn is worth,
It pleases me to stand in silence here;

A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognised, and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete,
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious,
And gravitating with it to this ground,
Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
If only that so many dead lie round.

—Philip Larkin—
—from The Less Deceived—

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the Four Horses of the Apocalypse
> conversation rather stupid, and dangerous in
> context of the time it took place.
>
> I do remember Hitchens, however, referencing a
> rather good poem by one of his favourites, Philip
> Larkin:
>
>
>
> Church Going
>
> Once I am sure there’s nothing going on
> I step inside, letting the door thud shut.
> Another church: matting, seats, and stone,
> And little books; sprawlings of flowers, cut
> For Sunday, brownish now; some brass and stuff
> Up at the holy end; the small neat organ;
> And a tense, musty, unignorable silence,
> Brewed God knows how long. Hatless, I take off
> My cycle-clips in awkward reverence,
>
> Move forward, run my hand around the font.
> From where I stand, the roof looks almost new –
> Cleaned, or restored? Someone would know: I
> don’t.
> Mounting the lectern, I peruse a few
> Hectoring large-scale verses, and pronounce
> ‘Here endeth’ much more loudly than I’d
> meant.
> The echoes sn.igger briefly. Back at the door
> I sign the book, donate an Irish sixpence,
> Reflect the place was not worth stopping for.
>
> Yet stop I did: in fact I often do,
> And always end much at a loss like this,
> Wondering what to look for; wondering, too,
> When churches fall completely out of use
> What we shall turn them into, if we shall keep
> A few cathedrals chronically on show,
> Their parchment, plate and pyx in locked cases,
> And let the rest rent-free to rain and sheep.
> Shall we avoid them as unlucky places?
>
> Or, after dark, will dubious women come
> To make their children touch a particular stone;
> Pick simples for a cancer; or on some
> Advised night see walking a dead one?
> Power of some sort or other will go on
> In games, in riddles, seemingly at random;
> But superstition, like belief, must die,
> And what remains when disbelief has gone?
> Grass, weedy pavement, brambles, buttress, sky,
>
> A shape less recognisable each week,
> A purpose more obscure. I wonder who
> Will be the last, the very last, to seek
> This place for what it was; one of the crew
> That tap and jot and know what rood-lofts were?
> Some ruin-bibber, randy for antique,
> Or Christmas-addict, counting on a whiff
> Of gown-and-bands and organ-pipes and myrrh?
> Or will he be my representative,
>
> Bored, uninformed, knowing the ghostly silt
> Dispersed, yet tending to this cross of ground
> Through suburb scrub because it held unspilt
> So long and equably what since is found
> Only in separation – marriage, and birth,
> And death, and thoughts of these – for which was
> built
> This special shell? For, though I’ve no idea
> What this accoutred frowsty barn is worth,
> It pleases me to stand in silence here;
>
> A serious house on serious earth it is,
> In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
> Are recognised, and robed as destinies.
> And that much never can be obsolete,
> Since someone will forever be surprising
> A hunger in himself to be more serious,
> And gravitating with it to this ground,
> Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
> If only that so many dead lie round.
>
> —Philip Larkin—
> —from The Less Deceived—

Beautiful, except the "Church" is never a building, a $100 bil hedge fund or any real-estate, it's people.

Hence, we have this unfinished business, cognitive dissonance, or double bind now bothering pretty much almost anyone maybe accumulating knowledge.

I remember Susan asking once if our kids would be offended if we told them we love the dogs as much as them. I said that my kids would be offended if I didn't love the dogs as much as them.

Our dogs got us through some of the worst years of our lives. They still do. I try to not get another dog after I lose one because it hurts so much, but I always end up getting one. I have 2 right now.

My kids are more work!! I'm chuckling. They definitely are more work, but I stayed in this life when I didn't want to because I couldn't leave them and I will stay as long as I can to be here for them.

It's always about your ability to love and not about who you love.

I am never afraid to love my dogs like I am afraid to love some humans. That is the great gift they give us.

People are hands down harder to love than pets. This is why this happens.

https://people.com/pets/pet-owners-would-dump-partner-pet-didnt-like-survey/

I love that somebody did that survey. Too good. Thanks.

Anything to do with the body and how marvelous it is - what it can do. Last summer - yoga, currently - Learning I can make a golf ball fly using a 4 iron and if you hit it square, you actually can feel the ball squish against the club. So awesome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2021 12:44PM by casey.

casey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anything to do with the body and how marvelous it
> is - what it can do. Last summer - yoga,
> currently - Learning I can make a golf ball fly
> using a 4 iron and if you it it square on, you
> actually can feel the ball squish against the
> club. So awesome.

Oh no, elderolddog look away..

Too late!

I swooned.

Yoga is most definitely the height of tuning into your body. I highly recommend it to anyone for any reason. We live in a world where we downplay our bodies. No corporation gives body movement breaks or cares what you do with your body as long as it can do their work.

Time with my wife. Time with my kids. Good food. Good music. Good art. Good books. Traveling. Meeting new people. Finding new things to learn.

A nice morning walk down the beach after enjoying a night of wonderful wine and sex.

This webpage contains a lot of good info about understanding yourself in context of the human condition. We and life have meaning and value.

https://www.humancondition.com/

Also, check out Stuart Kaufmanns idea about "the adjacent possible." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWo7-azGHic

I guess no one caught on to the absurdity here.

"what gives your life intrinsic meaning/purpose"

You can't have something give you something intrinsic. Meaning is very different from purpose. One can feel that their life has meaning (AKA they have a soul) and yet feel that they have no purpose in life. Likewise they can feel their life has a purpose (AKA they are going to to everything and anything it takes to get to The Celestial Kingdom) yet feel doing these things are meaningless to them personally. Their purpose trumps finding meaning in life.