For what purpose?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Imagine, as John Lennon once almost said, that there’s no God or Gods. None of the thousands of deities that humanity has ever believed in actually exists. We’re on our own. I’m being serious. Try to imagine it. I realise that for many here this will stretch your imagination. Some will undoubtedly say that they simply cannot conceive of such a thing. Perhaps some will simply refuse to allow themselves even to consider such a possibility. “There is no God” is a thought that some can’t contemplate and others won’t contemplate. If you’re in either of these categories, then I’m not addressing you here and I doubt if you’ll get anything at all from this thread, so you may as well move along.

There is no God. Ok so now what? Is there anything else that we therefore lack?
Many would answer this by saying that therefore our lives are without ultimate meaning or purpose and that we lack any objective source of morality. To be honest, I don’t really accept that, but here’s my concession to you. Let’s suppose that these are also true. Human life is without any ultimate meaning or purpose and the only morality available to us is subjective. These may be cause for regret – we might wish that are our lives are ultimately meaningful and that an objective morality is available, but our desire for these things does not magically bring them into existence, anymore than my desire to have enough money in the bank to retire and spend my life going from one music festival to the next will somehow deposit sufficient cash into my account in order to do so. The fact that we would prefer there to be a God who bestows ultimate meaning and purpose and provides us with an objective source of morality is not, in itself, an argument for God’s existence. So why is it used as one?

Suppose that science progresses to the point at which it becomes possible to clone human-like beings, perhaps in order to do the work of human beings. Some are cloned to be particularly adept at cleaning toilets. If such a being were to ask - “What is my ultimate purpose, bestowed upon me by my creator?” - in a very real sense the answer would be “to clean toilets”. But our hypothetical toilet cleaner is not satisfied with this answer (would you be?) He decides to reject this and seeks instead to find his own subjective purpose in life. Is a meaning or purpose that is imposed externally necessarily preferable to one that comes from within? Does the subjectivity of a self-imposed purpose make it somehow inferior to a purpose imposed by an external agent like a scientist cloning toilet cleaners?

[robertb]

Imagine, as John Lennon once almost said, that there’s no God or Gods. None of the thousands of deities that humanity has ever believed in actually exists. We’re on our own. I’m being serious. Try to imagine it. I realise that for many here this will stretch your imagination. Some will undoubtedly say that they simply cannot conceive of such a thing. Perhaps some will simply refuse to allow themselves even to consider such a possibility. “There is no God” is a thought that some can’t contemplate and others won’t contemplate. If you’re in either of these categories, then I’m not addressing you here and I doubt if you’ll get anything at all from this thread, so you may as well move along.

There is no God. Ok so now what? Is there anything else that we therefore lack?
Many would answer this by saying that therefore our lives are without ultimate meaning or purpose and that we lack any objective source of morality. To be honest, I don’t really accept that, but here’s my concession to you. Let’s suppose that these are also true. Human life is without any ultimate meaning or purpose and the only morality available to us is subjective. These may be cause for regret – we might wish that are our lives are ultimately meaningful and that an objective morality is available, but our desire for these things does not magically bring them into existence, anymore than my desire to have enough money in the bank to retire and spend my life going from one music festival to the next will somehow deposit sufficient cash into my account in order to do so. The fact that we would prefer there to be a God who bestows ultimate meaning and purpose and provides us with an objective source of morality is not, in itself, an argument for God’s existence. So why is it used as one?

Suppose that science progresses to the point at which it becomes possible to clone human-like beings, perhaps in order to do the work of human beings. Some are cloned to be particularly adept at cleaning toilets. If such a being were to ask - “What is my ultimate purpose, bestowed upon me by my creator?” - in a very real sense the answer would be “to clean toilets”. But our hypothetical toilet cleaner is not satisfied with this answer (would you be?) He decides to reject this and seeks instead to find his own subjective purpose in life. Is a meaning or purpose that is imposed externally necessarily preferable to one that comes from within? Does the subjectivity of a self-imposed purpose make it somehow inferior to a purpose imposed by an external agent like a scientist cloning toilet cleaners?

The age old question of why.

A funny word, isn't it.

Once the brain became capable of contemplating tomorrow, it was inevitable that we would ask this question. Of course, our ability to ask the question does not mean that there is, in fact, an answer to that question, or at least not an answer that satisfies our own sense of importance. It is actually amazing that we are here to ask this question in the first place and, perhaps, it is simply enough that we do so, regardless of the answer.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Interesting silence.

I made some similar points on a thread started by Jimbo yesterday and it was promptly moved to the 'psychiatric ward', or whatever it's called.

I was accused of bravado for saying (truthfully) that I was quite content to live my life without any "ultimate" God-given meaning or purpose. It matters not one bit to me that all my works will, like Ozymandias, come to dust. They are only temporarily and subjectively imbued with purpose and meaning. In the long run there is no ultimate meaning or purpose, but then in the long run everyone's dead, and so won't be around to care that it was all, "ultimately" (whatever that means) for nothing.

[robertb]

Though I still enjoy the presents under the tree on Christmas day...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Me too, but I think you're replying to another of my posts on a different thread (where I mentioned Santa!)

[robertb]

Me too, but I think you're replying to another of my posts on a different thread (where I mentioned Santa!)

Nah, I was replying to this one, specifically.

We live as if, even if it's not, I suppose.

[Alcoth]

Hi Oolon, this is much more interesting to me than the other thread you referenced. I have to go on a project shortly but when I have time I'll read over your post and reply.

I see you understand now what a rant is (jimbo's thread) and what a topic for discussion is.

PS - Your interesting silence comment... um... you posted this at 4AM my time. I don't know about you but I was sleeping, then taking care of my new son, then getting ready for work.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Hi Alcoth

Thanks for stopping by. You are of course right about the time issue. I'm in the UK and keep forgetting that many Twebbers are in bed when I'm making my first posts of the day!

Robert

Oh ok. My wrong!

[Alcoth]

Imagine, as John Lennon once almost said, that there’s no God or Gods.

It'll be difficult for me but I'll see what I can do. (What's the "almost", btw? Not a point of contention but it seems odd to say someone "almost" said something.)

There is no God. Ok so now what? Is there anything else that we therefore lack?

A reasoned, acceptable explanation for the complexities of life. That is, the harmony that things on this planet share, for instance.

Many would answer this by saying that therefore our lives are without ultimate meaning or purpose and that we lack any objective source of morality. To be honest, I don’t really accept that, but here’s my concession to you. Let’s suppose that these are also true. Human life is without any ultimate meaning or purpose and the only morality available to us is subjective.

Okay.

The fact that we would prefer there to be a God who bestows ultimate meaning and purpose and provides us with an objective source of morality is not, in itself, an argument for God’s existence. So why is it used as one?

Never have, can't comment here, sorry. I also don't remember seeing anyone say that "because we need meaning and purpose, God exists." Feel free to correct me, links to a thread or such. I could certainly be wrong.

Suppose that science progresses to the point at which it becomes possible to clone human-like beings, perhaps in order to do the work of human beings. Some are cloned to be particularly adept at cleaning toilets. If such a being were to ask - “What is my ultimate purpose, bestowed upon me by my creator?” - in a very real sense the answer would be “to clean toilets”. But our hypothetical toilet cleaner is not satisfied with this answer (would you be?) He decides to reject this and seeks instead to find his own subjective purpose in life. Is a meaning or purpose that is imposed externally necessarily preferable to one that comes from within?

Is an externally imposed purpose necessarily preferable to an internally realized purpose?

If that externally imposed purpose is from my creator, and my creator has directed me a specific way (indirect or direct) and I purposefully reject that purpose and accept the consequences (whatever that may be in this hypothetical situation) then bully for me. I'm on my way down my chosen path, come what may.

I don't think so.Does the subjectivity of a self-imposed purpose make it somehow inferior to a purpose imposed by an external agent like a scientist cloning toilet cleaners?

See above.

-----------

I tried to answer what I could. You had a lot of nested questions related to each other. Hopefully I make sense. It's early and I have a newborn so sleep is in teeny tiny quantities, lol

[Mountain Man]

Imagine, as John Lennon once almost said, that there’s no God or Gods.

In that case the only logical conclusion is nihilism.

[robertb]

In that case the only logical conclusion is nihilism.

Is that nihilism with a

Or, nihilism with a

[Oolon Colluphid]

"It'll be difficult for me but I'll see what I can do. (What's the "almost", btw? Not a point of contention but it seems odd to say someone "almost said something.)"

I just mean that the song says "Imagine there's no heaven" not "imagine there's no God", but I guess that's what Lennon was getting at.

"A reasoned, acceptable explanation for the complexities of life. That is, the harmony that things on this planet share, for instance."

Good point well made. I'd say science offers us a partial and mechanical explanation of the 'hows', so to speak, but it can't answer the 'whys'. Evolution by natural selection certainly attempts to explain the diversity and complexity of life on our planet, though not its origins.

"Never have, can't comment here, sorry. I also don't remember seeing anyone say that "because we need meaning and purpose, God exists." Feel free to correct me, links to a thread or such. I could certainly be wrong."

So could I! I seem to remember bumping into this on a few occasions here, but I can't recall names and threads off the top of my head. I think Seer, who's often to be found in 'philosophy 101', came close to arguing along these lines once in regard to objective morality, but I'm sure he'd put it less crudely than my brief summary here (he's a smart guy). It may be that he was simply pointing out that atheism is rather unappealing in its implications however. But if we're agreed that "just because we don't like it, it doesn't mean it isn't true" makes sense, I won't labour this point.

"If that externally imposed purpose is from my creator, and my creator has directed me a specific way (indirect or direct) and I purposefully reject that purpose and accept the consequences (whatever that may be in this hypothetical situation) then bully for me. I'm on my way down my chosen path, come what may."

Ok. But if I was certain that I was the product of a creator who provides me with a purpose I'd be a fool to reject that purpose. If I doubt that there is either a creator or an objective purpose then I'd be a fool not to try and find my own meaning and purpose.

"I tried to answer what I could. You had a lot of nested questions related to each other. Hopefully I make sense. It's early and I have a newborn so sleep is in teeny tiny quantities, lol"

Thanks for taking the time. Enjoy your rest.

[Oolon Colluphid]

"In that case the only logical conclusion is nihilism."

Ok. I guess I conceded that in the OP (without using the word 'nihilism' admittedly) for the purposes of argument. It may well be true that some may find nihilism to be a rather unappealing state of affairs, but this doesn't mean that this isn't the state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

(MM - There's an American folk band called 'Mountain Man' playing a festival here in the UK that I'm going to later in the summer. Are they anything to do with your pseudonym, or is Mountain Man just a phrase with which I'm unfamiliar? They make a beautiful sound btw)

http://www.greenman.net/

[MaxVel]

Interesting silence.

I made some similar points on a thread started by Jimbo yesterday and it was promptly moved to the 'psychiatric ward', or whatever it's called.

I was accused of bravado for saying (truthfully) that I was quite content to live my life without any "ultimate" God-given meaning or purpose. It matters not one bit to me that all my works will, like Ozymandias, come to dust. They are only temporarily and subjectively imbued with purpose and meaning. In the long run there is no ultimate meaning or purpose, but then in the long run everyone's dead, and so won't be around to care that it was all, "ultimately" (whatever that means) for nothing.

Hi Oolon -

I hope that it wasn't my comment in a reply to jimbo's emotive rant that you're referring to here. That comment by me wasn't meant at all as an attack at you specifically.

I'm a bit busy now, but I'll work up a reply to your interesting topic when I can.

[shunyadragon]

This line of thought is often what theists use to justify theism over what they call the inevitability of Nihilism if there is no purpose or why beyond the reality of our simple physical existence [note MM's simplistic response].

Even though I am a Baha'i and a theist, but in response to these questions I prefer the Buddhist/Taoist view of the question/ Something like . . .

OK, you ask the questions.

So what?