Back to Spirituality

@kevcvs57 said
Sorry I meant that if you accept the mechanics of evolution it removes the need for a why although it doesn’t in anyway disprove the existence of a ‘why’.

Understood sir.

I separate evolution from creation/origin. How we evolved doesn't help us understand why we are here.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Understood sir.

I separate evolution from creation/origin. How we evolved doesn't help us understand why we are here.

Agreed ghost, if there is a ‘why’ then evolution simply becomes the mechanics of creation.

@kevcvs57 said
Agreed ghost, if there is a ‘why’ then evolution simply becomes the mechanics of creation.

Man created language in order to communicate. There is no meaning outside language. Therefore there is no why, no reason and no meaning.

We exist therefore we are. We are born to survive and to procreate.

Spirituality, I would argue, is man's attempt to deal with his own consciousness. Understanding our mortality created God in order to console ourselves with the idea of an afterlife.

@neilarini said
Spirituality, I would argue, is man's attempt to deal with his own consciousness. Understanding our mortality created God in order to console ourselves with the idea of an afterlife.

I agree with this. I also think humans attributed their evolving moral codes to their God figures' will and tied their obedience and beliefs [i.e. their values and norms and social order] to the notion of being able to gain access to an afterlife.

@neilarini said
Man created language in order to communicate. There is no meaning outside language. Therefore there is no why, no reason and no meaning.

We exist therefore we are. We are born to survive and to procreate.

Spirituality, I would argue, is man's attempt to deal with his own consciousness. Understanding our mortality created God in order to console ourselves with the idea of an afterlife.

@neilarini said
“Man created language in order to communicate.”
Undeniably true
“There is no meaning outside language. Therefore there is no why, no reason and no meaning.“
Cannot agree with these constrained definitions of ‘reason’ and ‘meaning’, communication via language is the tip of the communication iceberg.
“We exist therefore we are. We are born to survive and to procreate. “
Certainly the most likely explanation from our perspective but it does not preclude the possibility of a third party perspective for me.


“Spirituality, I would argue, is man's attempt to deal with his own consciousness. Understanding our mortality created God in order to console ourselves with the idea of an afterlife.“
I agree that spirituality is very likely to be an illusion / coping mechanism but there is still plenty of room for speculation IMO.

@kevcvs57 said
@neilarini said
“Man created language in order to communicate.”
Undeniably true
“There is no meaning outside language. Therefore there is no why, no reason and no meaning.“
Cannot agree with these constrained definitions of ‘reason’ and ‘meaning’, communication via language is the tip of the communication iceberg.
“We exist therefore we are. We are born to survi ...[text shortened]... y likely to be an illusion / coping mechanism but there is still plenty of room for speculation IMO.

There is no divine factor in our existence, but I enjoy speculating why people would think otherwise.

😀

@kevcvs57 said
Sorry I meant that if you accept the mechanics of evolution it removes the need for a why although it doesn’t in anyway disprove the existence of a ‘why’.

But one could accept the mechanics of evolution (the how) and, while acknowledging the use of evolution by a higher power (the why), this doesn't in any way remove the need for a why.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There is no divine factor in our existence, but I enjoy speculating why people would think otherwise.

😀

More accurate to say there is no divine factor that you are willing to accept.

@kevcvs57 said
I suppose knowledge of ‘how’ doesn’t necessarily take ‘why’ out of the equation but I think there’s a certainty to ‘how’ whilst the need for a why and the why itself are purely speculative.
I can see that it’s reasonable to ask ‘what is a good life’ or ‘what is a productive life’ but I’m not sure many atheists would assume that there is a purpose in life. Wouldn’t that assumption presuppose an entity which would have to assign that purpose.

Not necessarily; there can be external ways of assigning purpose that do not rely on an external agent, e.g., "we evolved to be a certain way".

But when I use the word "purpose", I'm usually thinking of a personally-discoverable type of purpose that is unique to me.

@dj2becker said
More accurate to say there is no divine factor that you are willing to accept.

Due to the lack of evidence.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Due to the lack of evidence.

Two people can look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. So not it’s not a lack of evidence. It if were so no one would believe in the divine.

@dj2becker said
Two people can look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. So not it’s not a lack of evidence. It if were so no one would believe in the divine.

If your speculation about supernatural things resulted in objective truths, then everybody would subscribe to them.

But the claims you make about supernatural matters do not withstand empirical scrutiny - something you have conceded in the past and almost all thoughful theists do - so your conjecture and beliefs reside in the realm of subjectivity.

Making assertions about supernatural things based on evidence you happen to find convincing is not the same as people making assertions about the temperature inside and outside a hut in the snow, for example.

If you look at an orchid or a butterfly and claim it is evidence of the existence of a creator being, that's fine. But your perspective on that evidence is subjective, just as the perspective that it is not evidence of the existence of a creator being is also subjective.

@suzianne said
But one could accept the mechanics of evolution (the how) and, while acknowledging the use of evolution by a higher power (the why), this doesn't in any way remove the need for a why.

Thanks for summarising my stance 😊

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There is no divine factor in our existence, but I enjoy speculating why people would think otherwise.

😀

We enjoy the same sport, but you sir are more confident than me. 🤔

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Understood sir.

I separate evolution from creation/origin. How we evolved doesn't help us understand why we are here.

Interestingly to me evolution also does not explain how we arrived at consciousness. So if the 'we' you are talking about is our conscious selves you run into problems about when and how we actually began that are not properly understood.

Evolution explains the development of physical structures like our bodies and our brains, but the seat of consciousness is not explained by science in the opinion of the leading neurobiologists who struggle with this question. It is not housed in any specific area of brain and all areas of brain are subservient to it. It is not necessary for a brain to have it just as we would most likely not anticipate a sophisticated computer to get it. It possibly had a beginning in the physical world rather than having been a property of matter that was ever present although there are now interesting counter arguments to that since that defies the scientific principle that you can't get something out of nothing. In fact science bizarrely seems to be on a crash course with many Eastern spiritual philosophies as it considers consciousness as a property of matter that simply evolves into us as it gets more sophisticated equipment to store memory and process things through the evolution of brains. Then consciousness is a property of all matter needing the physical structures to bring it to life.