Magical Realist
Apparently even great scientists are not immune from the experience of higher cosmic meaning:
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of all true art and science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Mystery, awe and wonder are not higher cosmic meaning. Even us "cosmological nihilists" experience these things, that is not changed by the realization that the Universe does not even know you exist(and can know nothing at all). Religions use this experience in their way, but it is not the exclusive property of any religion or mystic ideas like purpose for existence.
Grow up. This isn't some competition to see who can best the other. We are just two highly fallible men having a rational conversation about a very pertinent issue. If being designated a nihilist hurts your feelings, then I'll respectfully retract it. But it just seems to me that a person who resigns themselves to the entire universe being without meaning, including the beings who are part of it, IS in fact a nihilist.
It didn't hurt my feelings, it insulted my(and this whole thread's)intelligence. According to many theists a nihilist should logically just kill themselves, as they can have no reason to continue this purposeless existence, your rant had that flavor about it. And your strawman and it's denigration is third grade, heels drumming on the floor ranting, not rational conversation.
Even if humans can distract themselves with hobbies and projects in their lives it still won't undo the fact that they are essentially as meaningless as cockroaches. Cockroaches have little projects too. They survive. They mate and raise their brood. Maybe they even worship some cockroachy ideal and call it "cockroachism" like we call ours "humanism". All very "meaningful" activities from the cockroaches' pov. But afterall they are still just worthless old cockroaches. Aren't you saying we are in the same boat?
Like everything else in this Universe, it's all relative to your frame of reference. To the Universe as a whole the cockroach is as meaningless as you are. To the cockroach he is the most important thing in his Universe and survival to reproduce the ONLY purpose he has, to a human, who has an extremely intelligent mind, survival to reproduce is still number one, but the number of various ways that can be accomplished are near infinite(largely due to our intelligence), each way a "purposeful" one. Some of our basic purpose is hardwired(even a male and female child raised by wolves will eventually figure out how), some is the result of intelligence(fire, shelter, clothing, weapons, etc.), some is social in character(tribes, marriage, kinship, culture, country, etc.)and in the last few hundred years we have had scientific sources of purpose(medicine, astronomy, physics, metallurgy, chemistry). If you can't see the difference between that mass of meaningful activity and the simpleminded activities of a cockroach it is you who have a problem with the implications of a meaningless Universe, not I. But don't be hating on cockroaches, they were here tens of millions of years before man existed and are likely to survive our destruction(they saw the dinosaurs die, after all).
You really seem intent on projecting on me some theistic belief. For the record I dispensed with theism long ago and have no intention of setting up anything in its place. That includes science. Many who elevate science to the status of revealed truth are making the same mistake the religious make--bowing to authority for what is real and true instead of relying on their own experience and reason to find that out for themselves. Are you one of these?
So you also don't know the difference between belief(acceptance without evidence, or need of evidence)and knowledge(acceptance because of the evidence, all of it). Revealed truth is that which is handed down from a source of truth, one you cannot show exists. Knowledge is built from the ground up, and that's what science does. Authority doesn't enter into it, only what you can show to be true. We have a lot of respect for Einstein because he proved the things he said were true. But that gave him no authority to demand that what he said be accepted on faith, again, no such authority exists in science. Einstein was shown to be wrong several times, especially about Quantum Physics. Now, if you are talking about a person ignorant of and having no understanding of science, Einstein might appear as an authority, the kind they are used to seeing in their religion, handing down knowledge from on high. Some of those reject what science has shown to be true because they think scientific authorities are equivalent to priests of a new religion that directly contradicts the crap their religions have fed them all their lives. It is this later view of authority in science you seem to be speaking of, a relic of your previous religious experience, perhaps, but dead wrong.
No, by logic that is the default position unless and until you can provide evidence for that claimed purpose.
I don't recall anything from any scientist of note stating that the universe is meaningless. That is a specific philosophical position you yourself have deliberately taken probably based more on your own life experiences than on actual logic. In fact science has provided us ample evidence that there is abundant meaning in the universe and that man is a key player in its realization. In fact Albert Einstein had some things to say about cosmic meaning. I'll be posting those in separate post shortly.
It is not philosophy, it is logic. Occam's Razor , Parsimony, not presuming that which is not in evidence, not adding non-necessary non-sense to your explanation. That I ALSO accept it philosophically is really irrelevant to it's inherent logic. There is no evidence that the Universe has a purpose, though it's very good at forming Black Holes, gravity you know. There is, on the other hand, lots of evidence of purposeful activity by humans, humans are purposeful despite the Universe being mechanical and purposeless. Oops, 4:00 PM, time for my doctor prescribed 1.5 ozs. of Maker's Mark. My purpose for the next little bit is to sit and sip, Ta.
Grumpy
![Cool :cool: :cool:]()