Debenham and Caldwell in New York

[Misty]

I would be intriguied to know their answers to the meaning of life.

[Tom Grubb]

Antises wrote:

Personally, I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the alternative to believing in a "Creator" and (by extension) a purpose to life is to believe that there is no purpose to human life and that it is chance combined with mutations and Darwinian natural selection *alone* that has brought all life to Earth. Do you sincerely believe that children should only be informed of the second view? Because it seems to me that this is just as bad as "asserting about the existence of a 'Creator'".

I think millions of Buddhists around the world would profoundly disagree with your suggestion that life without belief in a creator can have no purpose! Buddhism is, for the majority of Buddhists at least, a non-theistic religion. Yet despite their lack of belief in a creator, non-theistic Buddhists believe that life has a very definite purpose: to progress towards a state of Nirvana.

As it happens, I?m not a Buddhist. I?m also not an expert on Darwinism but what little I have studied of the subject has led me towards a belief that Darwin?s evolutionary theory is a very powerful and convincing response to the question of what life is ?about?. (Incidentally, it is also perfectly possible simultaneously to embrace Darwinism and belief in a creator. Catholicism, for example, is quite happy to do this.) If you asked me what I, as an atheist, believed the purpose of life to be, I would reply that, ultimately, there is no meaning or purpose to life beyond the replication of DNA! ?Meaning? and ?purpose? are human constructs. However, as humans we are able to give our own lives meaning through our actions. I choose to do what little I can to make the world a slightly better place for myself and others.

Do I believe children should only be informed of an atheist/Darwinian view of life? No! I believe in informing children of the many existing ideas of what the purpose of life may be and letting them decide for themselves.

Antises wrote:

This may be a pessimistic view, but if boys are not told that there are "essential human duties" or what they might be, they will not care (and, possibly, they will never care).

I think that is a very pessimistic view! In my experience, boys (and girls) don?t need to have religious ideas imposed upon them in order for them to care about what their ?duties? may or may not be.

[Antises]

I apologize for forgetting about non-theistic Buddhists. However, it must be noted that Buddhism originated in India, whose major religion Hinduism is theistic (and many concepts, include progression towards a state of Nirvana, is common to Buddhism and Hinduism).

Of course, this does not change the fact that Buddhists generally do not believe in a Creator and yet have a purpose, but for the remaining 94% of the world's population who are not Buddhist I think that the only alternative for those who do not believe in a Creator is to believe that there is no purpose to human life and that chance combined with mutations and Darwinian natural selection has brought all life to Earth. As a person who does follow a religion, I exclaim, "What a life!"

Regarding "essential human duties", try asking a 16-year old (in my opinion, the age of adulthood) not informed of how a human should act what duties a human ought to have. Either today's teenagers have a severe communication problem, or they have never thought about the matter, or it's not exactly on their "To Do" list, because they never seem to produce coherent, meaningful answers (and, for example, I would not call "Live and let live" a coherent answer).

[Tom Grubb]

Antises wrote:

Of course, this does not change the fact that Buddhists generally do not believe in a Creator and yet have a purpose, but for the remaining 94% of the world's population who are not Buddhist I think that the only alternative for those who do not believe in a Creator is to believe that there is no purpose to human life and that chance combined with mutations and Darwinian natural selection has brought all life to Earth. As a person who does follow a religion, I exclaim, "What a life!"

And I exclaim, "What a patronising attitude you have!" Just because you are incapable of imagining that agnostics and atheists can possibly believe in a purpose to human life it doesn't mean that they can't believe in one.

Antises also wrote:

Regarding "essential human duties", try asking a 16-year old (in my opinion, the age of adulthood) not informed of how a human should act what duties a human ought to have. Either today's teenagers have a severe communication problem, or they have never thought about the matter, or it's not exactly on their "To Do" list, because they never seem to produce coherent, meaningful answers (and, for example, I would not call "Live and let live" a coherent answer).

An interesting experiment! But how would I be able to ascertain whether or not that 16-year-old had previously been informed of how a human should act? And what does "informed of how a human should act" actually mean? Oh, and what's so incoherent about "Live and let live"?

[Guest]

I'm sorry if you feel that I am patronising you. That was never the intention. For many people who have been brought up in a religion, it is difficult to contemplate not having a religion. What purpose exactly can non-religious people attach to life? I will be very interested in your response.

When I said "informed of how a human should act" I was assuming that the majority of teenagers in this country are not informed of the essential duties of a human, because I believe that most people share your view that boys and girls automatically think of their moral duties. "Live and let live" is a popular phrase which really does not tell me much about what a person considers his/her duties.

[mgormez]

I assume Antises wrote:

I'm sorry if you feel that I am patronising you. That was never the intention. For many people who have been brought up in a religion, it is difficult to contemplate not having a religion. What purpose exactly can non-religious people attach to life? I will be very interested in your response.

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly (English is not my first language after all). But how about the purpose of caring for the people you love, voluntering time at the boyscouts, learning as much as you can, taking your nephew to the zoo and see him smile all day, getting up real early in the summer and stroll in a centuries old city and many more of such activities?

Some people I've spoken too found religion to be ultimatly nothing but a control mechanism with fear and punishment and are doing fine without the need to belief in anything. Others think religions are outright criminal, and frankly if I see the latest row about the condom-scandel - while the African population is getting decimated - I agree on that point wholeheartedly.

[the annoyed]

"Live and let live" is a popular phrase which really does not tell me much about what a person considers his/her duties.

Live and let live... that probably promotes vegetarianism in my view! hah.... Tom Grubb do you eat meat?

[the annoyed]

Some people I've spoken too found religion to be ultimatly nothing but a control mechanism with fear and punishment and are doing fine without the need to belief in anything. Others think religions are outright criminal, and frankly if I see the latest row about the condom-scandel - while the African population is getting decimated - I agree on that point wholeheartedly.

........and there are other is this world that have found refuge in a religion. They find that religion helps them, gives them strength, a purpose, a view of life. Gives them happiness, answers their questions, gives them warmth and enlightenment, fulfils their spirituality.... yes we've established we're all different. Religion suits some people, and does not suit others!

[Tom Grubb]

"Live and let live" is a popular phrase which really does not tell me much about what a person considers his/her duties.

Live and let live... that probably promotes vegetarianism in my view! hah.... Tom Grubb do you eat meat?

I was once a vegetarian but now I'm a carnivore. How does that fit your theories?

[Tom Grubb]

Antises (I believe) wrote:

For many people who have been brought up in a religion, it is difficult to contemplate not having a religion. What purpose exactly can non-religious people attach to life? I will be very interested in your response.

I think Mike has answered your question very well.

As I mentioned before, people (religious and otherwise) tend to project their own meaning and purpose onto life. It's perfectly possible for atheists and agnostics to live a purposeful, moral and useful life and there are very many famous examples of them doing so. Just because (to take an example from at least one religion) I don't live in fear of eternal damnation or hope of eternal reward, it doesn't mean that I don't think my life has a purpose. I have a set of principles which I try to follow and I have a set of beliefs. I just don't happen to believe in or worship any God or gods.

[Tom Grubb]

the annoyed wrote:

........and there are other is this world that have found refuge in a religion. They find that religion helps them, gives them strength, a purpose, a view of life. Gives them happiness, answers their questions, gives them warmth and enlightenment, fulfils their spirituality.... yes we've established we're all different. Religion suits some people, and does not suit others!

No argument from me here.

[Antises]

Mike wrote in answer to my question:

But how about the purpose of caring for the people you love, voluntering time at the boyscouts, learning as much as you can, taking your nephew to the zoo and see him smile all day, getting up real early in the summer and stroll in a centuries old city and many more of such activities?

I don't understand what you're saying: are you trying to say that living a good life is the purpose of life? You have just described a few things which you might do in a good life. Does this give it purpose? What separates us is your notion that leading a good life in itself gives it purpose, whilst most people who follow religions attach a reason to why you should lead a good life. Otherwise it's easily possible to go round in circles saying: "Doing good things gives life a purpose; the purpose of life is to do good things." This ambiguity may be a small point of logic, but I feel it is crucial nonetheless.

Also, I NEVER cricitized atheism: I merely asked a question, and unexpectedly received an overly defensive reply. The reason why I am hesitant to admit that atheists can have a purpose to life other than to live is because of the above ambiguity which will always remain in such arguments. I never claimed, as suggested by Tom Grubb, that the lives of atheists and agnostics cannot be moral, useful and purposeful (in the sense of "purpose of a life", not in the sense of "purpose of life" - that is another factor which has led to disagreement; whilst I talk of the latter purpose, you talk of the former).

I have a set of principles which I try to follow and I have a set of beliefs.

The problem that may arise with this attitude is that a person's "set of principles" and "set of beliefs" may not be constant (of course, I am not qualified to say whether they are or not). Any possible purpose to life, in my opinion, should be the same through all the various stages of life. Religion ensures that the purpose cannot possibly be changed. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?

Religion suits some people, and does not suit others!

I agree entirely.

[bella]

Wow, I think it would be awful to tell your kids that the big reason for living a good life and being kind to their fellow humans is because of an afterlife or metaphysical consequence. Maybe 'purpose' is being defined differently, but I firmly believe virtue is its own reward, and combined with joy, offers meaning to existence in and of itself.

[mgormez]

Mike wrote in answer to my question:

But how about the purpose of caring for the people you love, voluntering time at the boyscouts, learning as much as you can, taking your nephew to the zoo and see him smile all day, getting up real early in the summer and stroll in a centuries old city and many more of such activities?

I don't understand what you're saying: are you trying to say that living a good life is the purpose of life? You have just described a few things which you might do in a good life.

Perhaps not so much the purpose to life but living life. That's good enough for me.

Today I had an intensive workshop on how to recognize cultural/ethinical/appearence differences and group dynamics associated with such, both with clients and colleagues. It was a good day where I met a bunch of wonderfull interesting people. I look back on it with satisfaction and I have no need of someting telling me it was a good day.

Does this give it purpose? What separates us is your notion that leading a good life in itself gives it purpose, whilst most people who follow religions attach a reason to why you should lead a good life.

I know, and that is one of the things that turn me off. The stick behind the door that you should behave according to rules of a group to get in heaven (or what other word is used in the group) or otherwise face eternal condemnation. It's really awful to have to live like that in my opinion.

Otherwise it's easily possible to go round in circles saying: "Doing good things gives life a purpose; the purpose of life is to do good things." This ambiguity may be a small point of logic, but I feel it is crucial nonetheless.

Before I edited this posting I a had previously written "I understand, but see things differently." but that is kind of too easy.

Let me think about it, I am too tired on the moment.

Still later. Well, I can go on and make it really long - and perhaps even contradict myself - or just say that I agree with Bella. Which hereby I do.

Also, I NEVER cricitized atheism: I merely asked a question, and unexpectedly received an overly defensive reply.

Not from me, and the following quote is from Tom, not me:

I have a set of principles which I try to follow and I have a set of beliefs.

Religion suits some people, and does not suit others!

I agree entirely.

Yep, me to.

And let me add that although I use harsh words for the sytem of religion, it is not in the slights meant for anyone of you here.

[the annoyed]

I know, and that is one of the things that turn me off. The stick behind the door that you should behave according to rules of a group to get in heaven (or what other word is used in the group) or otherwise face eternal condemnation. It's really awful to have to live like that in my opinion.
.

I hate splitting up religion into two simple parts as such, but I shall anyway to explain my view. Inb my veiw there are two parts to a religion, 'real' religion, and 'spiritual' religion.

The 'spiritual' religion talks about death, what happened after death, its all about what happnens after you die.

I consider 'real' religion to be the part which guides us how to live. In short it talks about a way of living. I take this to be the most important part of the religion, as it is about the present moment in your life.

Something I learnt in philosphy is that in the vedic philosophy, when someone realises the consiousness, and breaks himself from all material objects, sees the 'bhraman' (being God) in everything and everyone, he is known to be self-realised. It is something like that, that inspires me. Reminds me that there if something really speacial in everyone, reminds me that we are all quite equally beautiful, reminds me that matelial objects are really nothing. But a meaning as beautiful as that, inspire me and quite a lot of people.

Like I said earlier, spiritual development does inspire a lot of people. However it tends to confuse others. Some are happy enough to live without it, while others do well to live by it.