The meaning of "meaning"

I would like to discuss an idea that Marc brought up in Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. about the meaning of life for Atheists.I would like to argue the position that Atheism* is actually a philosophy of meaninglessness.Well, actually, no... no, I wouldn’t.Rather, I would like to argue that what Atheism calls meaning is fundamentally different from what Theism calls meaning, such that the common line that Atheism has meaning is really just a semantic point.The word meaning is like the words science and sport: society perceives these words are badges of honor or legitimacy, so every intellectual pursuit wants to be called a science, and every competitive pursuit wants to be called a sport; and it’s taken (and often intended) as an insult when the badge is not given.But, as is generally the case, the words themselves are not literarily badges of honor or legitimacy. Our tendency to perceive them as such has often caused us to lump things into unnatural groupings, and to consequently fail to recognize important distinctions between different things.For a religious person, like myself (sometimes), meaning implies an actual purpose or significance in the grand scheme of things. This is a purpose or significance that is defined externally (by some outside agent), and could (if it were true) be objectively verified by other observers.For a non-religious person, like the other (smaller) half of me, meaning implies a feeling or sense of purpose or significance. This is a purpose or significance that is defined internally, and could exist even if no other observers could verify it objectively.I’ll grant that, from the Atheist’s perspective, religious meaning is also just a feeling or sense of meaning. But, from the Theist’s perspective, this amounts to a denial that Theistic meaning exists, accompanied by a redefinition of the word meaning to reflect that denial. There is something beneath the feeling of significance in the Theist’s view.For the Theist, an actual meaning causes one to have a sense of significance.But, for the Atheist, nothing external is claimed to be the cause of the sense of significance, so there is no equivalent concept in Atheism to what the Theist calls meaning.Thus, I don’t think Theists are strictly wrong when they say that Atheism is meaningless: it’s just offensive to say it because of the emotional value we place on the word meaning. *I will capitalize "Atheism" and "Theism" because it makes them easier to distinguish, so readers won't get confused.

---

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

Hi, Mr Jack. That's pretty much what I said here: Except, that I said it while trying not to offend peopleEdited by Bluejay, : Civility: not off to a good start. Sorry, Mr Jack.

---

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

Hi, Stile. I think it could have been started by somebody better, but I think I'm much better than when I tried to deal with it before. At least it's progress, I suppose.I knew I'd get Stile and Straggler on this: I just didn't think it would happen so quickly. Good to have you both! ----- I don't think you can claim either one to be "superior": I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.My OP favored the Theist side, but that was just because the demeanor of the board requires me to emphasize the minority side in order to get my point across.My point is not that one is better than the other (you know me better than to think I could ever make up my mind like that), but that I think we're just talking past each other, and no real information is being conveyed in either direction.----- Anyone can give out whatever badges they want to. The point I want to make is that Theists and Atheists are giving the same badge to different things.I should add that I'm not convinced that I'm right, but it seems right to me. Consider this sort of a peer review, I guess.

---

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

Hi, Straggler. Yeah, I suppose so. I think I'll step back a little from that and ask that the word "necessarily" be removed: I don't want to over-generalize. It does seem to be the typical, baseline response that Atheist’s pose when challenged on the alleged meaninglessness of their worldview.But, it’s not so much the approach I’m getting at as the actual substance. I think there are actually several different elements of the problem that are closely related, but are not the same thing.Let me try to show my idea a little more schematically. The way I see it, meaning is used to refer to three different pieces of the same puzzle: I’ll call them cause, sense and role (feeding of your usage of the words): Cause: The real thing that causes someone to have a sense of meaning. (e.g., divine destiny) Sense: The feeling of having significance or importance. Role: The purpose that one fills as a result of their sense of importance or significance. (e.g., save the whales or be a good father) Where --> is read leads to.I argue that, in an Atheistic worldview, there is a sense and a role, but no cause. The role can certainly feed the sense, but it’s a cyclical, circumstantial relationship, rather than a linear one.I also argue that, in the Theistic worldview, the cause is what is most often thought of as meaning. Since there seems to be no corollary to this in Atheism, I argue that the Theist is not wrong when he says that Atheism has no meaning: he’s just not communicating in the correct medium.

---

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

Hi, NWR. Oh good: I was worried that it would be multiple worms. ----- I'm not following you on this.Since we're not clear on what "purpose" means, creationists try to say that the "purpose" must be God?When a Theist or creationist says Atheism is meaningless, Atheists usually say that meaning is defined individually. They don't ever mention anything more than that, so it sounds like they chalk it up to subjective, personal whims.Perhaps this is where my (and other Theists') misunderstanding is?

---

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

Hi, Modulous. Well, in Mormonism, the purpose of God is reciprocal on man, so perhaps there is more of a cyclical relationship than I said there was in my post to Straggler, which kind makes my distinction between "cause" and "role" pretty arcane.This is an interesting point you've raised.I see Theistic "meaning" like a puzzle: an individual piece fits where it fits, and is defined by its fitting there. But, what's the meaning of the puzzle? I have no idea: but it's where the piece fits. (Maybe this is a cyclical relationship, too, then?)Atheistic "meaning," on the other hand, is not like a puzzle, because people are not formed specifically to fit in a certain place. Maybe it's more like LEGOs or something: they go where they think is a good place for them, and the resulting construction is whatever it is.So, maybe it's more of a "top-down" versus "bottom-up" distinction. I'll have to sit on this for a bit to decide whether I still think this is a fundamental difference in what "meaning" refers to. I still feel like there's a fundamental difference there, but I'll need to work it out more.Thanks.

---

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

Hi, Straggler. Yes, it makes perfect sense.My only possible point of contention would be this part: I'm not very clear right now on why this isn't resonating with me, though. I think I'm stuck on "beliefs" vs "reality."If we consider both sides' viewpoints on "meaning" to be "real," then I'm not sure we can put the Theistic "cause" in a "social/cultural package."Let me stew on it for a bit (but, feel free to offer further input before I get back to it: it might help).

---

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

Hi, Stile. Yeah, maybe Theists view God like physicists view the speed of light: He represents the boundary condition, the thing that everything else can never actually approach, except maybe asymptotically.Maybe that's somehow the answer I need to give to Modulous.Now I'm just being a little goofy. That's my cue to get back to studying now.Thanks.

---

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

Hi, NWR.You were right: I opened up a can of worms. What a weird bit of philosophy "intentionality" is: I don't even want to touch it. I'm going to stick with the word "meaning," and pretend it's the same thing.If this causes me to make an error, please help me resolve it, but I don't foresee that happening. The Theistic position is not that only Theists have meaning in their lives, but that only Theists correctly recognize or identify the meaning of their lives.Do you agree that it's possible for a being that has an intrinsic meaning for its existence to misidentify what that meaning is?

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi, Sac. I need to stop you here, because everything else you say derives from this, and you don't even have a logical argument here.Here's the sequence of events from your post:You asked a question.
You answered it negatively.
You provided a parallel example.
You stated that the parallel example is also impossible.
You restated your position that the first question's answer is, "no."There is no reasoning and no conclusion there: there is a metaphor of dubious quality surrounded by assertions, rhetorical questions and an unsupported insertion of "life" into the equation by sleight of hand.What is so special about life that it is capable of imparting "meaning" when non-life is not? Are you sure life is the dividing line between what can impart "meaning" and what can't?Edited by Bluejay, : Parallel structure.

---

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