Maybe I’m simply suffering from sleep-deprivation and not thinking clearly, but isn’t it a bit arrogant to basically claim that anything that cannot be explained by our rational understanding simply does not exist?

Yes, as a species of animals, we may have accomplished quite a lot in our short run of existence thus far. But think about this for a moment: If there really were beings that you might call “gods”—beings which operated on a higher plane of existence, and could influence our lives in any manner that they saw fit—do you really think that we, as beings on a lower plane of existence, could truly explain or rationalize them? After all, as humans, we do share a similar genetic markup with idiots like Bush, Cameron, and Comfort.

I’m not bashing science or rationality at all. If we can begin to understand our world more logically, then good for you, and good for us all. However, we also need to get off of our high horse, and accept the fact that there are simply some matters in our universe that will never be properly defined, explained, or understood, and yet will still exist, anyway.

Simply because there are things in the universe we’ve not completely figured out yet doesn’t mean we won’t so long as we don’t end up killing ourselves off beforehand. If it exists within the universe then it is natural and if it’s natural then given enough time I have no doubt we can figure it out eventually.

Consider how much knowledge we’ve already amassed in our very short existence as cognitive beings and it should be clear that we are very clever naked monkeys and, in comparison to how long the universe has been around, we’re only just getting started.

but isn’t it a bit arrogant to basically claim that anything that cannot be explained by our rational understanding simply does not exist?

It would be arrogant if it weren’t a straw man.

We don’t fully understand gravity, yet only The Onion would claim it doesn’t exist.

If a claim isn’t supported by evidence that meets the standards of rational and scientific inquiry, then there’s no reason to believe it to be true.

But think about this for a moment: If there really were beings that you might call “gods”—beings which operated on a higher plane of existence, and could influence our lives in any manner that they saw fit—do you really think that we, as beings on a lower plane of existence, could truly explain or rationalize them?

That’s not worth thinking about.

Any sufficiently advanced being is indistinguishable from God.

—Edward D. Knapton

So what? There could be beings vastly more advanced than we are, but unless the evidence is in, the only rational response is to remain properly agnostic about the question.

Just because something could exist is not good enough reason to believe it really does exist.

However, we also need to get off of our high horse, and accept the fact that there are simply some matters in our universe that will never be properly defined, explained, or understood, and yet will still exist, anyway.

Emphasis added. Phrased like this, it’s anti-intellectual special pleading.

We will all end up dead, so in the end, nothing we do makes any difference. So my question is, how, and why, do you all quench this longing for meaning?

Aaron, Patness already said it: meaning is local, and there’s no obvious reason why the whole universe should have a meaning.  Here’s why:

Meaning, and purpose, and intention, are not inherent properties of matter or energy, but are thought patterns, or viewpoints, of living things.  A rock, or a planet, has no purpose or meaning or purpose: it just is.

Now, you or I, or a mouse for that matter, might find a meaning in a rock, or we might think of a purpose for the rock.  For instance, a rock might serve the purpose, or have the meaning (depending on what you mean by “meaning”- a very slippery word!) to a mouse of shelter.  A rock on a certain trajectory towards my head might have the meaning to me that someone nearby wishes me ill.  But the rock itself has no meaning, in the absence of a relationship with living things that have intentions.

Meanings, and intentions, and purposes, did not exist until life appeared- they are also evolved entities.  So unless you already believe a priori in the existence of God, there’s no reason to believe that life as a whole, or the universe as a whole, have a meaning or purpose.

So why do some of us have this longing for ultimate meaning?  I suspect the reason is this: since we are social animals, and it’s very important for us to know the intentions of our fellow beings, we are always asking ourselves “what is the meaning of such-and-such an action?“  Trouble is, we assume that simply posing the question assumes that there must be an answer, which is not necessarily so.  There’s a hierarchy of meaningful questions that can be asked about different phenomena:  for a rock thrown at our head by another agent, we can ask “what is the intention of the thrower?“ “Why does the rock describe a parabola?“ “How does gravity work?“.  For a bolt of lightning from a cloud, the question about intention is meaningless, but the “why” and “how” questions are part of science.  If we ask why there is a universe at all rather than nothing, it may well be that the “why” question is also meaningless, and all we can meaningfully do is describe as best we can the “how”.  This of course depends on what one considers the difference to be between “why” and “how” questions, which is also debatable.  In any case, questions about the meaning of the whole universe assume the existence of a Meaner outside the universe.

I agree that when I’m dead, nothing will make any difference to me anymore.  But I’m not dead yet, and that makes all the difference:  my life is filled with meaning.  As Patness said, the universe is a very big place, and I’m more than content with the little smidgeon of meaning and life that’s been granted me.

So why do some of us have this longing for ultimate meaning?

But it’s 42. Enough already.

Marginally more seriously, there’s a difference between meaning and ultimate meaning. The former is whatever you make it, the latter makes me think of windmills.

there’s a difference between meaning and ultimate meaning. The former is whatever you make it, the latter makes me think of windmills.

Hmmm, extracting sustainable energy from the environment to build culture?  That’s pretty close to my idea of ultimate meaning…

I have a little catching up to do so i’ll be adressing more than one person here

Aaron - You seem to be thinking about it, so I’ll take you seriously

First of all, I don’t believe that you can prove God’s existence using science

Correct - If god resides in another dimension (as he would have to if he existed and we didn’t see him), and we can’t build machines that are able to venture into that dimension because we can’t interpret it ourselves (so won’t know what corresponds to what even if we observed something from this end) - it’s that analogy that you can’t make an equation only knowing one side of the algebra, so we as humans would never be able to calibrate the machine

because the very definition of science excludes the possibility of God

Disagree - it tries to explain things using physically observed rules, which if consistent it will consider proof. The thing about science is it’s highly repeatable so it’s a natural assumption that the same rules will always apply.

It’s a philosophy, which cannot itself be tested, and so the philosophy itself isn’t scientific

Religion is a philosophy that cannot be tested, science is testable within it’s philosophy, and is a credible possibility because it agrees with observation. As long as you can explain observation you have a theory that might hold water and might contest accepted science, but don’t think that you necessarily have to completely dismiss science because it might form part of the explanation, and if you do use it you have a lot less you need to explain. Consider science as just the mechanics of the physical world. If there were a link between science and god then that would be a vital part of the theory, and I’ll give a head start with saying that a door is open with the uncertainty principle

So we have a question such as “How did life begin?”, and my biology book states, “We will never know for sure, of course, how life began. But science seeks natural causes for natural phenomena, and that is the approach that must guide scientific inquiry about the origin of life.” So I’m very skeptical of scientific explanations like evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang theory, because we don’t know what happened, and I don’t agree with the assumptions

It’s a case of ‘this is what we consider the most probable explanation if everything strictly abides by our rules’. Anyway, one thing that has me confuddled about how life started is how primordial cells managed to gain stereochemical purity when there is no chemical reason to favour one enantiomer over the other, that is where science might struggle, but what you have to understand is that it’s all too easy to say ‘god did it’ to terminate the arguement, the patern of science is such that there is often more depth to that which puts scientists off resorting to ‘god did it’. Also no scientific paper is going to suggest an uncertainty because of the way things are, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true…

It’s mainly because if I were an athiest, I would have to believe that my life has no ultimate meaning at all

(for others too)
Whether there’s a god or not we can go broader than that, existence in any form has no meaning, feelings have no meaning (I can explain), and yet they have direction (you’d prefer to be happy, and things that make you more likely to survived are associated with that) but why should you prefer to be happy? If we are god’s dreams because he was lonely or wanted some escapism or to learn, then why should any of those things bother him? I don’t understand why anything should have prefrence for existing or not, or about what happens or how it feels, these things (and time itself) are unsymetrical and it doesn’t make sense to me that there isn’t some anti version to balance them.

But if there is no God, isn’t everything we do a waste of time? We will all end up dead, so in the end, nothing we do makes any difference

From the end it can look that way, but you will exist for some time at least and be subject to different feelings, even though there is no clear reason for prefrence, there is preference, and it’s a case of making the best of it. An interesting thing is about selfishness vs helping others out for no personal gain - there is no logical reason to not have selfish motives at the deepest level and yet people violate this, just as I am now to some extent I guess, and I don’t understand it or myself

Now Les:

Simply because there are things in the universe we’ve not completely figured out yet doesn’t mean we won’t

Remember there will always be a place for religion and anything else in dimensions that our machines can’t probe, of which there are an infinite number because some are imaginary (and don’t require an imaginer)

Aaron:

Science is a way of looking at the world that assumes that all natural phenomena have natural causes.  It’s a philosophy, which cannot itself be tested, and so the philosophy itself isn’t scientific.

The only philosophy here is your interpretation of science. You’ve created a strawman here, and a fairly nonsensical one at that.

So I’m very skeptical of scientific explanations like evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang theory, because we don’t know what happened, and I don’t agree with the assumptions.

Bully for you, but that doesn’t make such explanations unscientific.

It’s mainly because if I were an athiest, I would have to believe that my life has no ultimate meaning at all.

I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s not the way I feel at all.

Not that I don’t at times think, and even wish, that were true, but I think there is a better part of me that hopes that there is a reason for my existence.

I know the reason for my existence—my parents had sex circa September 1976.

But if there is no God, isn’t everything we do a waste of time?

Not at all. We decide for ourselves whether or not our lives are a waste of time. God belief is irrelevant in that regard.

So my question is, how, and why, do you all quench this longing for meaning?

Simple—by getting the most I possibly can out of my brief existence and being the best person I can be within my own frame of reference.

Sadie Jane, I missed the memo (as usual), but am guessing you are our good friend Sexy Sadie?  I notice the name has changed on other comments.

Sorry if we embarassed you with that shower bit.  We’ll be good. 

I kew exactly who she was.  I don’t aim to be good- I aim to be bloody fantastic (Hint guys- pelvic floor exercises for men)

Hah, or practice, LH, but I realize there are some among us neither so fortunate nor so motivated.

I hate it when I have to read through pages and pages to get caught up on a discussion that cries out for a contribution from me. 

First let me say that with respect to this:

So I’m very skeptical of scientific explanations like evolution, ...

You kill any credibility that you have.  DOA.

Which is only partially a shame because this portion:

So I’m very skeptical of scientific explanations like…abiogenesis, or the big bang theory, because we don’t know what happened, and I don’t agree with the assumptions.

gets at something that is being inartfully worded.  In all fairness to science, I’m not aware of any explanation that explains the beginning of matter so I’m not sure that science is actually offering anything at the present time.  That said, is what this:

Just because something could exist is not good enough reason to believe it really does exist.

cuts both ways.  The faith principle of the atheist that life originated from non-life, also known as spontaneous generation, is where the atheist must take refuge at the present.  Granted, there are some underlying assumptions that are likely to make one more predisposed to accept such a heretofore and currently unproven proposition that has not been replicated in any meaningful fashion.  Yet, those assumptions are lack of faith in one area that manifests itself as faith in a different area.  We all choose to believe.  The only question is in what.

(Consi) The faith principle of the atheist

You’re still equivocating on the meaning of faith, aren’t you?

faith n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Which is it for atheists and theists respectively?

cuts both ways.

No, it does not.

that life originated from non-life, also known as spontaneous generation, is where the atheist must take refuge at the present.

The atheist must take refuge? It’s the theist who must hide his gods in ever shrinking gaps.

Yet, those assumptions are lack of faith in one area that manifests itself as faith in a different area.

More faith-based equivocation.

We all choose to believe.  The only question is in what.

I am incapable of choosing to believe something that I consider self-evidently absurd. How about you?

Consi, I know that you’re fond of using variations on the “it takes just as much faith to be an atheist” theme. Remember what you told Aaron, though: DOA.

Why don’t you read up on computational theory and partial functions. Undefined doesn’t have to slow you down

You’re still equivocating on the meaning of faith, aren’t you?

Not at all.

Which is it for atheists and theists respectively?

Belief that does not rest on material evidence.

No, it does not.

But it does.  When you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.  When you dress up propositions that lack material evidence, well, they are faith based beliefs no matter who holds them. 

The atheist must take refuge?

Would you prefer “The atheist has always taken refuge?“

I am incapable of choosing to believe something that I consider self-evidently absurd. How about you?

I’m of the mind that a lack of material evidence is just that-a lack of material evidence, not self-evident absurdity. I’m not sure how you make that jump.  The only way I know for you get from lack of material evidence to “self-evident absurdity” is to color the numbers with personal prejudice.  If I’m mischaracterizing that, please feel free to set me straight on the path you traveled.

Why don’t you read up on computational theory and partial functions

If you have an article in mind, please point it out to me.

Belief that does not rest on material evidence.

I’m of the mind that a lack of material evidence is just that-a lack of material evidence, not self-evident absurdity

DOA.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless you’re a Christian apologist—in which case it’s evidence of existence.

It’s really quite simple, Consi. You can make up things as go and claim that they explain something, but these claims are utterly vapid until all the evidence is in. In your case, I’m still waiting for any evidence.

If you have an article in mind

I do have a text book in mind that’s a fairly simple read, but I don’t recall it’s exact title.

It’s really quite simple, Consi. You can make up things as go and claim that they explain something, but these claims are utterly vapid until all the evidence is in.

  I would agree and just add for clarity’s sake that it applies with equal force to all beliefs that lack material evidence.

...I’m still waiting for any evidence.

Me too.

Me too.

The difference is that you have to wait until all the evidence is in to confirm that your beliefs are right, whereas we can wait until all the evidence is in to see if we were wrong.

You really should stop playing the “it takes as much faith” card. One of things you neglect to address is probability. Given what we have learned about nature and the ever-shrinking gaps for gods to hide in, I am confident (as in faith#1) that abiogenesis has a purely materialistic explanation. It’s disingenuous to claim that the lack of a full materialistic explanation lends equal probability to the existence of the Christian god, the IPU, the FSM, or even the bland god of philosophy and forces me to take refuge in faith (#2)—when you talk about “taking refuge”, you’re trying to shift the burden of proof for good measure.

The long and short of it—whatever floats your boat. I consider theistic beliefs as self-evidently absurd, religions as self-evidently man-made, and until you have something that’s admissible as evidence within my world view, your line of “it takes as much faith to be an atheist” doesn’t get more credible the more often you repeat it. Yours is an extraordinary claim and it’s not my job to prove you wrong.

One of things you neglect to address is probability. Given what we have learned about nature ...I am confident (as in faith#1) that abiogenesis has a purely materialistic explanation. It’s disingenuous to claim that the lack of a full materialistic explanation lends equal probability

Either there is evidence or there is not evidence.  As it stands now, the only discernible reason probability for a materialistic explanation weighs heavier for you is a personal bias.  As you aptly point out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

I will grant you that for the proposition that there is a God, there is a burden to carry that may not be met, absent faith as defined in number 2.  I won’t say it is somehow disingenuous to suggest that when there are two propositions, both lacking material evidence in support of them, that it is more likely to suggest that one is more probably just because you think it should be.  I will say it is not disingenuous, to suggest that when there is an absence of material evidence, there is an absence of material evidence. 

Elwed, there are some necessary implications for the lack of a belief in God.  For example, based on the science we have to date, we no of no way for matter to generate from non-matter or life to generate from non-life.  Everything we know to date, from the material evidence that we have, suggests that these two propositions do not fit.  It is the same belief in science that you have that I have and from which I come to the same conclusion that science stands on my side. 

So, though there may not be a burden of proof for God that is not carried by the theist, likewise, there is an uderlying assumptions you are forced to take that is a proposition.  It is the lack of material evidence for the underlying proposition that is problematic and for which there is a burden of proof.  A burden that goes unmet.  It breaks down the same way whether you like that or not-Yours is an extraordinary claim and it’s not my job to prove you wrong applies to the extraordinary beliefs that we both possess, Sir.   

I understand that you believe that science will eventually fill the “gaps” and reveal how what is currently unfathomable is in fact very fathomable.  That may be the case.  That has a ring very much like the theist claiming “More will be revealed,“ though.

As you indicated, we are left with whatever floats your boat.  There is no intellectual superiority to one over the other though.  Such implications occur only when one fails to account for the lack of material evidence that exists within the complete universe of propositions on both sides.

I won’t say it is somehow disingenuous to suggest that when there are two propositions, both lacking material evidence in support of them, that it is more likely to suggest that one is more probably just because you think it should be.

Should read:

I won’t say it is disingenuous to suggest that when there are two propositions, both lacking material evidence in support of them, that it is more likely that one is more probably just because you think it should be.

There is no intellectual superiority to one over the other though. 

Says the person making the extraordinary claim.

Says the person making the extraordinary claim.

You make the extraordinary claim.  You just try and hide it under the surface. 

Atheists are sneaky devils.

As it stands now, the only discernible reason probability for a materialistic explanation weighs heavier for you is a personal bias.

Consi, I’m just about done feeding you…

I have the accumulated and growing body of scientific knowledge about our natural world on my side. On your side is centuries of futile grasping at straws. What has theology done to increase the knowledge about our natural world—other than mystical hand-waiving and making things up as the centuries went?

If it makes you happy to claim that your theistic belief has equal or higher weight than a naturalistic world view, then so be it. Just know that I consider it a risible claim in and by itself.

For example, based on the science we have to date, we no of no way for matter to generate from non-matter or life to generate from non-life.

That’s not quite the full story. There are hypotheses that are in principle testable, even if it may not be practical to do so. Even if a lab experiment would luck out in our lifetimes, this wouldn’t be proof conclusive that this is the exact thing that happened in the Earth’s past.

What do you have to offer? A firm, inner belief that a sky daddy was nice enough to create the universe just to give humans a place to fart around on?

You keep harping on the absence of evidence theme, but you should know well enough that an unanswered question on one side does not validate the other. It doesn’t suffice for you to keeping coming back with “you don’t know how abiogenesis happened—neener neener neener”. What you have to do is to show that it cannot have a naturalistic explanation. I’m not holding my breath.

I have no evidence that would conclusively disprove that it wasn’t a space alien that reached with an interdimensional tentacle into my pocket and stole a wad of cash out of it when I was in ninth grade. I’m confident that it was another student (or perhaps an employee or visitor of the school). What you are saying is that the tentaclist theory forces me to take refuge in my suspicion that it must have been another person present at the time, because I’m unwilling to entertain the extraordinary tentacle claim. Same difference with god and abiogenesis.

I understand that you believe that science will eventually fill the “gaps” and reveal how what is currently unfathomable is in fact very fathomable.  That may be the case.  That has a ring very much like the theist claiming “More will be revealed,” though.

It only rings like this if a theist wants to flatter his or her delusions. Science works and results in theories that make testable predictions about the natural world. Some theories don’t get it quite right and presto, they’re discarded in favor of more accurate ones. On the other hand, all a theist has is belief without proper evidence. If they don’t like specific parts of a theology, they pull something else out of their asses.

You make the extraordinary claim.  You just try and hide it under the surface.

Or, translated into more common language; “Nuh-UH!“

Let’s see now: the naturalistic claim is that the rest of the physical universe probably works the same way as what we’ve observed of it so far. We have disovered in extremes of minute scale and great velocity that matter behaves oddly, but it behaves consistently oddly, which provides a set of clues to the extremely remote past.  Some things may never be figured out but we haven’t encountered any clear sign that in principle, they couldn’t be.

The theistic claim is that there is an invisible being, who routinely violates the nature He created.  (it’s a He, at least according to the religions of Humanity from the last three Millennia - a very short section of our very brief tenure so far on Earth).  This being goes to some pains to be undetectable, and punishes attempts to test Him.  The specifics of this being change from century to century as different humans reinterpret ancient legends.  Failure to believe the right interpretation of this being will result in eternal torment, though we have no evidence that personal consciousness survives the body. 

Gosh, you’re right; what was I thinking?!!

But, but, DOF! You make it sound like there’s something wrong with an imaginary solution that’s more complex than the original problem.

Sadie Jane, I missed the memo (as usual), but am guessing you are our good friend Sexy Sadie?  I notice the name has changed on other comments.

Yep, she and I are very close. No embarrassment received on this side. I’m only wondering what’s taken KPG so long…