The meaning of "meaning"

In what sense is this revelation specific? For that matter, in what sense does "revelation" actually explain anything? And why do so many theists (BlueJay among them) assert that God's real intent is not known or knowable by mere humans?If the revelation is "specific", why is there such an unlimited tendency for people to form different (and incompatible) interpretations from the same "revelation"?

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

That's it exactly, because "purpose" is the word used in several places in the KJV Bible. It's a proper translation from the original languages.

And what is it that keeps atheists from giving their lives meaning?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

what question is it that you think is inherently contradictory Your ultimate argument implies itLike him, you fail to understand that thier can be no meaning to anything, (now watch)even your assured conclusion about thier not being or purpose in meaning itself or a conclusion about meaning itself ultimatley if it is really undefinable and inherently contradictorySince you are now switching gears and assuming thier is meaning in the real sense of the word, perhaps you could provide an example of something that has meaning and explain why that thing has meaning but why reality itself has no meaning that is NOT logically definableEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

The question I quoted before I said what I said. My argument is that meaning depends on the scope being considered. I've not failed to understand anything. I've simply not made the claims you are saying that I am making. I'm hardly switching gears, you are just having difficulty understanding me. It's probably because you are assuming what I am saying rather than comprehending. In both my first and second posts (of the three I had made before you asked this question - the third being the response to you) I described all of this. If you don't understand it, let me know and I'll simplify. If you dispute my point tell me on what grounds.If going back and reading two of my posts, one of which you have presumably read, is too taxing, try this

quote:

---

My life is a potential link between my ancestors and my descendants (or a sibling's descendants, or a cousin's etc) - it means the replication was succesful.

​

Or maybe my meaning is to generate happiness? To help make this strange experience of consciousness be as painless as possible? To protect those around me from the chaos?

​

All of these are 'external' to me, as much as 'To glorify god' might be external to the theist. If we start asking the atheist 'but what's the ultimate grand scheme purpose to making people happy and protecting your family?' we'd probably get the same answers as if we asked the theist about the ultimate purpose of God.

---

Hi, Modulous.I tried to compose a response yesterday, but I couldn’t get it done without interfering with my other obligations.I think I’ve been thinking more about the actuality (versus the subjectivity) of meaning than on the external derivation of it. So, maybe what Straggler was getting at in his first post here was more on target than I originally thought it was.This thread is taking too much thought from me, and I’m afraid I won’t be able to devote enough time to it. So, forgive me if I’m noticeably slower than usual and don’t dot all the i’s appropriately.I’m really stuck on one aspect of your argument: I keep seeing this as simply assuming that the Theistic view of meaning is wrong, and that meaning cannot be anything but subjective.The Theist has two recourses in explaining where meaning comes from without it being ultimately subjective:

1. That meaning itself was created by God as part of the creation of the universe.
   ​
2. That there is an infinite line of gods having been created by other gods.

The second one is what my religion believes. I grew up with the idea of infinity being a normal part of philosophy, and I’ve never been able to quite grasp why infinite regression arguments are regarded as less rational than uncaused first cause-type arguments. I’m willing to regard it as nothing more than a hold-over from my upbringing, but I’ll need a little more convincing first.We’re free to ignore the infinite regression argument for this debate, simply because I don’t think it applies to the typical Christian Theist, anyway; and I’ve so far been framing my argument as the typical Christian Theist argument.The other one (God-created meaning) could be argued to still be meaningless, in line with your posts so far. But, it still puts Theistic meaning on a different platform from Atheistic meaning, and it amounts to a reversal of what counts as intrinsic (created) and what counts as derived (assigned) from what NWR explained.I see the Theistic argument looking like this: And, and I see the Atheistic view looking like this: We all agree on the last two parts of this flow chart, but Theists and Atheists perceive the arrows going in opposite directions. For the Theist, roles such as parenthood or careers are demanded of them by their intrinsic/created meaning or purpose.I still don’t see a corollary to this in the Atheistic worldview. And, it’s not just a difference in scope: it’s a difference of a certain sense versus what causes the sense.At this point, though, I’m wondering if I’ve just convinced myself that there’s a distinction, and am reaching beyond what typical Theists actually think in an effort to find this distinction. Since Marc is apparently following this thread, a little insight from him would be nice.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

That is not an argument it is an observationUltimatley we are not talking about a perspective, we are talking about meaning in and about reality itself. Meaning therefore does not depend on the scope being considered, but whether it is logically demonstratable that meaning can have meaning in the first place. Is it rational to conclude meaning could have purpose ultimatley If you think I have missed what you have said, please explain. Did you not say 'Mix it up"?EAM

Your first one is a bit contradictory. If you assume God created the universe you are by argument assuming his existence, which would eliminate any need to look for reason in meaning, because it should be obvious that it there already.Without knowing it your thread has actually presented two questions of meaning. Whether meaning is logically possible and rational as a belief and whether meaning has meaning in some greater moral sense. It would therefore depend on ones beliefs after initial conclusions were drawn concerning the logical conclusions about reality.Thus if God exists and it can be reasonable and logically demonstrated that such a belief is rational, then meaning is not only going to have purpose but it will have it objectively and ultimatley.If not then the question of meaning is a pointless as anything else would or could beEAM

Hi, Dr A. Keep in mind that I qualified it as, "from the Theist's perspective."I refer you to a comment I made to Stile upthread: If I had felt the need to explain your views on the subject to you, I would have included a statement that started with, "From the Atheist's perspective..."But, I figured that you already had a handle on that part, and thus, didn't need my input.----- You and Straggler are both presenting things that are blurring the nice, clean lines I tried to draw.I acknowledge that there is probably little distinction between the ways Theists and Atheists arrive at their conclusions. But, substituting the ways of drawing conclusions for the conclusions themselves is essentially assuming that Atheist position is right.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, EMA.Let's have a contest to see who can write the words "meaning" and "purpose" the most times in the shortest, grammatically-tenable posts.Maybe that will get the Atheists off our backs.----- I don't think the question of whether meaning is logically possible is really in doubt: I'm assuming that "meaning" exists as at least a conceptual entity.Though, perhaps you've raised a legitimate question about whether meaning is "real" or "imagined."But, since that would only lead us into a really cheesy discussion about what counts as reality---which will only ultimately demonstrate that nobody who participates is sufficiently in touch with reality to weigh in on the topic---I'm forbidding it here.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

You've picked a right pickle of a topic - I wouldn't worry about getting tangled up a little. There'll be plenty of talking past one another before the thread is over. Something has to mean something to someone right? How could it not be subjective? If there isn't a subject that finds meaning in it - what are we talking about? But then it means something according to the subject, God. But God itself has no meaning. And what is the meaning of having an infinite line of gods being created by other gods that give meaning to the existence of humans? I dispute this. The meaning in my life was 'created' by me, or by my circumstances. I don't see how it is different from God creating 'meaning' or 'assigning' meaning or anything else.

quote:

---

intrinsic (created) meaning --> sense of meaning --> roles/duties

---

But what do you actually mean by intrinsic meaning? How is the intrinsic meaning of 'replicating DNA' somehow less intrinsic than the intrinsic meaning 'pleasing God'? Or 'fitting into some unknown grand scheme'?I've specificed the Grand Scheme of atheistic intrinsic meaning (DNA replication) and any sub-meanings that are created or assigned from there. Theists seem to rely on mysteriousness to imply their intrinsic meaning is somehow 'better' than the atheist meaning. intrinsic (created) meaning --> sense of meaning --> roles/duties
DNA replication --> sense of meaning --> roles/duties
or possibly
DNA replication --> roles/duties --> sense of meaningSimples! Possibly. Maybe you are just trying to justify something great about theism to yourself because that nagging doubt has reared its ugly head?

Hello, everyone.I'm currently of the opinion that whatever distinction I was trying to sort out between Atheistic and Theistic views of "meaning" is too arcane to be of any practical use to the evolution-vs-creation debate, and thus, this thread has already proven useless for my original intention---which was to improve communication between the two sides.I have to add that it was quite interesting being a surrogate "creationist" for awhile, and experiencing the debate from the minority side for a change, but, I'm not as up to the task as I thought I would be.Maybe Marc and/or EMA will want to carry on the discussion without me, in which case I'll keep my eyes on it. But, I don't intend to push my view any further.Thanks, everyone.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

And since that observation makes up my position - it'd be silly to say that I was rejecting the concept of meaning wouldn't it? Which I contest makes no sense. If you'd like to reveal what you think that meaning is, then let me know. Feel free to explain.... In fact what I said was

quote:

---

I was expressing my own experiences having discussed this line with several reasonable and intelligent theists and a few irrational ones too. I have no idea how a theist would explain something in specific revelation. Since it is on topic - perhaps you could shake things up a bit and say what it is.

---

And you haven't explained, via specific revelation or mere words, what this great plan and what the purpose behind the great plan is, yet. Any particular reason why you haven't?

Hi, Modulous.One more comment couldn't hurt, I guess. I'm not sure my residual Theism is really motivating me to do anything anymore (except to be reluctant to reject it outright).I still feel a bit of a connection to it, though, and can consequently still understand where other Theists are deriving their ideas from. That, I guess, makes me feel like I have some useful insight that can bridge the gap and make the evolution/creation debate less nasty and more civil.But, I'm giving it a rest now: the whole thing just ties my in knots.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

EMA writes:M writes:Why does it make no sense, because you dont think its possible or you feel there is no way to find it?No no. At this point I am only discussing that reality can have objective meaning, that because someone decides that objectivity reality is not possible, that does not prove that it is notObjective reality is not logically excluded because someone has NOT deduced its very logical reality, if even only from a standpoint of logic, which besides reality itself the only real foundation in the first placeFirst, is it logically possible for there to be meaning and purpose, then what might it be Will logic and reality allow it. Answer, yes Because I hadnt thought we had found any common ground about logic, reality, meaning or purpose.If a specifc revelation is made in the form of Christ and scripture (Gods word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overallEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.