how well do any of these reconcile with naturalism? I apologize in advance if naturalism rules out teleology by definition, as it seems it might. But the question I have in mind is that while any of those may provide a non-theistic account of an ultimate meaning and thus not be nihilistic, the epistemology that leads people to reject theism seems to also lead them to reject Plato's forms or Aristotle's teleology. Kant always confuses me too much to be sure if it applies to his account of reason or the categorical imperative also. But it seems like at the very least there is no naturalistic grounding of Kant's morality, right?

I realize you allude to this when you mention arguments that none of those systems justify morality either, and I take the point that it's an oversimplification to reduce the choice to theism or nihilism, but in practice the strongest arguments against theism do lead to nihilism, don't they? Or at least do not admit of any ultimate "meaning" to existence that could be known.

Two points. First, you can include the afterlife without God, so this won't get you to NotReady's binary. Second, I am pretty sure that NotReady would say that an afterlife without god is still nihilistic (I'm pretty sure we discussed this at some point). The reason why is because he thinks that goodness and evil are not just the result of a rational calculation of how to best "do what feels good," but rather has something to do with the nature of god, or being godlike.

Third, for what it's worth, doing what feels good, minus the afterlife, is the basis for some secular moral theories.

WTF? This is pretty ridiculous. Kant, Aristotle, and (maybe) Plato actually were world-class physicists/cosmologists. Anyway, I don't see why you don't understand this simple point. I'm not claiming that you should complicate your worldview (which isn't close to a tautology) with the moral speculations of these philosophers. I'm saying that my speculative moral ontologies are about as likely as the god speculation, so the simple binary proposed by NotReady--god or nihilism--is false.

It may be interesting to speculate what we would feel like if we knew that many of those other "specks of dust" in the picture had habitats and living creatures that were familiar to us. We would feel like a natural part of the universe. I think we wouldn't feel so lost or insignificant. But we are pretty sure just the opposite is true. There are very few friendly planets out there and not much chance of other intelligent life. So we wonder "do we really belong here?".

What difference does it make if we're the inexplicable by-product of irrational forces? What difference does it make if death has no meaning? It's life that has meaning. Some have given it meaning by inventing a god. By doing so, they take away their own responsibility for morality. My brain tells me what's right and what's wrong.

Doesn't the argument, then, come down to the nature of the evidence? I brush my teeth based on my brain telling me that the temporary inconvenience will result in more feeling good in the future. Religious people's afterlife is hokum, akin to telling me I should pray to avoid cavities.

I used the term drivel. It still applies.

A debate about the worthiness, or not, of certain philosophers is an interesting topic. I feel no need to engage in it however.

I wonder if DS has read any David Hume or Spinoza.

If the ultimate reality is the irrational then life has no meaning any more than death or anything else. You don't give meaning to something by saying it has meaning or by feeling it does. Meaning can be defined and includes the logical and rational. I'm using the word in that sense, not in the sense of an emotional response or a parochial invention.

Only after you fully accept a basic immutable fact: life has no meaning; can you begin the journey towards truth. Since most never take that simple step they wallow about in the muck of innumerable chimeras and, to themselves, seemingly insurmountable obstacles that require some form of interfering and powerful deity to resolve.

The obvious question that comes next is what is "good?" Would you say that this is akin to eudaimonia? If we are looking for the "good" we want the highest good, no?

If you were able to noodle through an answer on how to live "good" - what would be more significant to humanity being able to provide an answer to the "good" or physics?

not that i care for philosophy but surely there are different types of smart, being a world-class physicist doesn't mean you would have been any good at, say, philosophy.

I'd suggest that the ingredients would list the planet Earth and the star Sol. The entirety of the rest of the universe would be the 'wasted space'.


In that sense, what would be acceptable examples of "the meaning of life" given even just deism (more interesting would be Christianity, if that is your position)?

You're speaking in riddles. "Ultimate reality" and "meaning of life" don't mean anything. The meaning of the word "three" is discernible, not the "meaning of life" or the "ultimate reality." Using one's brain to determine morality is not an emotional response. God is a parochial invention.

But to get earth and sol you need the whole universe.


When you use the word meaning in terms of just yourself, individually, what do you mean. Then ultimate meaning would be the same idea only larger.

I wasn't addressing morality as an emotional response, but the idea that "I love my wife, therefore my life has meaning."

Ultimate reality has meaning in that it refers to that than which nothing is higher.

With respect, this is nonsensical. You have defined the words "ultimate reality" by defining the word "ultimate."

But what does this mean? Nothing. Anyone can guess what happens after we die. It is just that, a guess. Most cultures have imagined their god as one would expect, given their environment. It does not mean their god is real or that he/she/it is emblematic of "ultimate reality."

I still don't understand why we need God or a god to have morality. I'm willing to try. But I need something more concrete than "ultimate reality has meaning in that it refers to that than which nothing is higher."

On creationism, why do you need the whole universe?

I'm sorry, I don't follow what these words mean - the same as individually but 'larger'?
Anyway, I'm simply asking you, what do you think is the meaning of life (ultimate or otherwise)?

While anybody can guess at what happens after we die, there is literature dating back thousands of years from many different cultures describing journeys that our soul/spirit makes after we die, which i highly doubt was based on guesswork.

With the exception of some highly modernised versions of religions that fit neatly into our lifestyles our culture has completely lost touch with spirituality and is about consumerism, capitalism, a whole bunch of isms that tie the members of that society to a material existence and a world of distractions that never existed until recently. Those of you with children or who work with young people will be able to see the vast difference even between the way they are growing up and the way you did; with 24/7 facebook, mobile phones, cable TV etc. there is less (no?) time for quiet introspection the likes of which may foster a more spiritual worldview or give rise to certain experiences.

To believe that all the human race ever had was a "guess" at what comes next is erroneous and belies a lack of knowledge of a whole pile of beliefs that have been around since forever. as a member of our society you are just completely cut off from that and believe that the next man's wild guess is as good as what has been before. it isn't.

what are you defining spirituality as?




what is a spiritual worldview?

Why are experiences important? You make it sound like spirituality is a quest to have certain experiences.


How is that erroneous? There is no proof as to what comes next. No one has ever come back and told us. So all we have are guesses, made up stuff.


Yes, and thats all they are, beliefs. Why is being cut of from these beliefs a bad thing? I guess this may be answered in your definition of spirituality.

You don't. You need it on naturalism. Remember, it was Sagan's quote. The point of the post was to show Sagan answered his own question about wasted space. For theism, you need the whole universe to get this universe, which is what God wanted, for his reasons.

What is the meaning of a spark plug? For itself, individually, to spark. But in a larger sense, to help cause a vehicle to move. What is the meaning of the vehicle? etc.

The ultimate meaning of life is what God determines it to be - why did he create in general, why did he create me, what is my purpose in his all-encompassing plan? That I don't know - it's a matter of ongoing discovery.

If all humans are equal and each has his own morality then morality has no objective meaning. If you say murder is wrong and I say murder is right and we are equal then there is no meaning to the concepts right and wrong. For morality to exist there must be something higher, more authoritative that humans.

I can't think of a better way to say it. The universe is contingent - it came into being and therefore isn't a necessary existence. Higher than that is the concept of necessary, non-contingent being. The highest of all is ultimate.

If humans are equal, why would they each have their own morality?

Also I think you are assuming a degree of individuality that probably doesn't exist - we are much more interdependent.

This would mean God has no morality and ultimately there is no morality.

God being the creator of all things would be the ultimate reference as to whether or not morals exists.

This is where I have issues with the concept of no God or no creator. Logically, if there is no creator, then morals are just relative (moral relativity). For some reason, it appears that a lot of people are not conscious of this. It seems most people are just halfway in. They believe there are morals but they don't believe there's a reference. To me, this is logically contradicting.

Murder and Rape would be a normal way to increase likelihood of mating during the caveman days. So it's okay at that time in our history?

In fact, if there is no creator then our objective is to survive and procreate. But the problem with this is that the people who succeeded in this and survived the longest are generally the worst types of people in our human history as they have done it in the suffering of others.

Take this monster Ariel Castro who just committed suicide last night. Sure everyone is thinking good riddance but the harsh truth to this reality is unspoken of or it's probably because people are not really aware. But when you think about it from his perspective, he lived out his wildest fantasies at the suffering of three women in an extremely cruel way - only to cease to exist at the end of it.

100 years from now, nobody will ever remember his name nor care to the point where it actually never happened.

I disagree with the bolded; the judgment Ariel Castro faces is not merely the one in this world. Whatever afterlife awaits him, I would not wish/want for anyone else.