5 ms·

Religion for a modern person with the easy access to the knowledge we now have is effectively just being intellectually lazy. Some people do need help right now

Religion for a modern person with the easy access to the knowledge we now have is effectively just being intellectually lazy. Some people do need help right now, but I don’t think religions are any better than other addiction resources. AA gets a pass for me because I know atheists that used it and the religious component is easy to ignore. AA works because of the group and accountability, not faith in some higher power. Anyway, not to be insulting, but it is all a bunch of made up nonsense for a time when we did not have actual explanatory knowledge for our existence and universe. We do now. Religion and its institutions are dying out in industrialized nations because they have lost their claim to having all the answers.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
Are you saying that we (collectively) or at least you know why we exist and the meaning of life?
- bitexploder 4y ago
  In broad strokes, yep.
  - fipar 4y ago
    I'm an atheist, yet I don't think science can answer why we exist and what is the meaning of life. I think those questions are syntactically valid but semantically invalid. We kind of (in the 'broad strokes' you say) think () we know how we got here, how life got started, etc. But why? How do you know that? It's an honest question because, again, I don't think that question makes sense so I'd love to know your take on it. () I say we think we know because I'm actually agnostic (I typically say 'atheist' because it stops some conversion attempts I'm not looking for from even starting, judging by your two comments on this thread I reckoned I can give you the honest answer as you won't try to convert me into anything!) and I believe we can only know what we conclude from the information collected by our senses and our thinking process after that, but an error in either the information collection (think of how the first scientific estimates of the age of the planet were off by a long shot on account of choosing a poor thing to measure -- I'm thinking about the work of Halley here) or in the thought process would result in bad knowledge, and it seems to me there's a part of the scientific-minded population right now that has a blind spot for this: there's overconfidence in science.
    - bitexploder 4y ago
      A fair response to my blithe and confident answer. In general, though, we have figured enough out to understand our origin well enough to rule out religious theories in our existence. To reduce things the way you did is a denial of progress at some level, while couching it in caution against trusting science too far. Our first bridges sucked, now they are better. Our first stabs at cosmology were not much better than another religion, now they are better. Is there some bad knowledge kicking around in science? Of course. That is why I said in “broad strokes”. To cut to the chase: our brains are just piles of chemistry. There is no meaning. We make it up, and that is ok. “Why” we exist is coincidence and millions of years of happy little evolutionary experiments blindly conducted by nature. Maybe there is a Deus ex Machina in there, but for our purposes does it really matter?
      - fipar 4y ago
        We agree on the meaning then! :) This reminded me of the intro to “A universe from nothing”, where the author says (paraphrasing) “why is there life is the wrong question, but we can try to answer how is there life?”
        seti0Cha 4y ago
        Can you elaborate on what is meant by "the wrong question"?
        v-erne 4y ago
        Not OP, but I think I can add my 2c here. It means (pun intended) that the meaning is not self sustaining term in our reality - there is no absolute meaning outside of our perception. There is only relative meaning (as in what kind of meaning my perception assigns to things that can be observed by me - simply put - we create our own meaning). It can be simplified further to there is no meaning or the meaning does not exist but in my opinion this is oversimplification and reeks of nihilism. So if You look at things from the point of view described above the "why" question (which can be paraphrased to "what is the meaning") is wrong.

SnowHill9902 4y ago

Are you saying that we (collectively) or at least you know why we exist and the meaning of life?

bitexploder 4y ago
In broad strokes, yep.
- fipar 4y ago
  I'm an atheist, yet I don't think science can answer why we exist and what is the meaning of life. I think those questions are syntactically valid but semantically invalid. We kind of (in the 'broad strokes' you say) think () we know how we got here, how life got started, etc. But why? How do you know that? It's an honest question because, again, I don't think that question makes sense so I'd love to know your take on it. () I say we think we know because I'm actually agnostic (I typically say 'atheist' because it stops some conversion attempts I'm not looking for from even starting, judging by your two comments on this thread I reckoned I can give you the honest answer as you won't try to convert me into anything!) and I believe we can only know what we conclude from the information collected by our senses and our thinking process after that, but an error in either the information collection (think of how the first scientific estimates of the age of the planet were off by a long shot on account of choosing a poor thing to measure -- I'm thinking about the work of Halley here) or in the thought process would result in bad knowledge, and it seems to me there's a part of the scientific-minded population right now that has a blind spot for this: there's overconfidence in science.
  - bitexploder 4y ago
    A fair response to my blithe and confident answer. In general, though, we have figured enough out to understand our origin well enough to rule out religious theories in our existence. To reduce things the way you did is a denial of progress at some level, while couching it in caution against trusting science too far. Our first bridges sucked, now they are better. Our first stabs at cosmology were not much better than another religion, now they are better. Is there some bad knowledge kicking around in science? Of course. That is why I said in “broad strokes”. To cut to the chase: our brains are just piles of chemistry. There is no meaning. We make it up, and that is ok. “Why” we exist is coincidence and millions of years of happy little evolutionary experiments blindly conducted by nature. Maybe there is a Deus ex Machina in there, but for our purposes does it really matter?
    - fipar 4y ago
      We agree on the meaning then! :) This reminded me of the intro to “A universe from nothing”, where the author says (paraphrasing) “why is there life is the wrong question, but we can try to answer how is there life?”
      - seti0Cha 4y ago
        Can you elaborate on what is meant by "the wrong question"?
        v-erne 4y ago
        Not OP, but I think I can add my 2c here. It means (pun intended) that the meaning is not self sustaining term in our reality - there is no absolute meaning outside of our perception. There is only relative meaning (as in what kind of meaning my perception assigns to things that can be observed by me - simply put - we create our own meaning). It can be simplified further to there is no meaning or the meaning does not exist but in my opinion this is oversimplification and reeks of nihilism. So if You look at things from the point of view described above the "why" question (which can be paraphrased to "what is the meaning") is wrong.