4 ms·

> But why would you care if you won't be here? Because I would like for my children and their peers to not live in a world ravaged by climate change, disease,

> But why would you care if you won't be here? Because I would like for my children and their peers to not live in a world ravaged by climate change, disease, and war. > It effectively means that this is a random choice No, not random, a choice honed by thousands of years of natural selection. > that most people (who do not have such instinct) will choose a different, more logical and beneficial, behavior. Do you have evidence for any part of this statement? > My line of thought is that if you believe that there is a meaning of the Universe, then you have a logical reason to behave with a long-term view. And otherwise you don't, do you? I don't see how this follows at all. For one, all of the reasons I've previously stated are, in my opinion, solid reasons for behaving with a long-term view. Secondly, I still don't understand what you mean by "meaning of the universe," and your possibly-maybe equivalence of it with "the purpose of life" has left me at least as confused as was before. Edit: this might have been obvious from my prior posts, but it might be worth stating explicitly that when it comes to all of this stuff, I'm a naturalist, and more specifically I tend to agree with the methodological naturalist way of thinking. So statements like: > Of course, there is no rigor to such conclusion, otherwise it would be ordinary science and our discussion would be unnecessary: this all would be just a fact are tough for me to wrap my brain around. To me, "ordinary science" is *all there is*, and I would expect that if there were some higher being that created the universe, we would see evidence of that being and it would be described in studies that would use data to assign good candidate explanations (not "facts") to what we observe. But in the thousands upon thousands of years that humans have believed in deities, no one has yet done this to my knowledge.

fsflover 3y ago
> No, not random, a choice honed by thousands of years of natural selection. OK, you have just stated that you do not use logic when making decisions about your life long-term but instincts. I was searching for logical reasons to behave empathically. With a strict, mathematical logic, if you will. And I don't see it. > Do you have evidence for any part of this statement? Do you have evidence that most people on Earth are involved in a volunteer activity that has no benefit for them in this life? AFAIK it's the opposite: true volunteering is a rarity. (Although following instincts is of course popular.) > For one, all of the reasons I've previously stated are, in my opinion, solid reasons for behaving with a long-term view. I disagree. From the natural selection's point of view, it's true. From the point of view of one person, it isn't. > To me, "ordinary science" is all there is I fully agree with you here. However, our current knowldege is not all there is. > and I would expect that if there were some higher being that created the universe, we would see evidence of that being This is a naive view of such entity. The world might be more complicated than this. For instance, some religions explain that it would not want you to know this, because you should have a free will and your own path to grow and not a path of a follower of a god.
- angoragoats 3y ago
  > Do you have evidence that most people on Earth are involved in a volunteer activity that has no benefit for them in this life? I never claimed that, and since you responded to my request for evidence with a question implying that I hold a position I do not hold, I'll assume you have no evidence and dismiss your claim. > From the natural selection's point of view, it's true. From the point of view of one person, it isn't. Why? Natural selection is not a conscious entity and therefore cannot possibly have a point of view. And I feel that the benefits provided to me and my life, as I've previously described, make it rational for me to behave this way on an individual level. > This is a naive view of such entity. The world might be more complicated than this. For instance, some religions explain that it would not want you to know this, because you should have a free will and your own path to grow and not a path of a follower of a god. OK, let's break this down: the fact that there has never been any established scientific evidence for a creator means that those deities that are not described as remaining hidden are likely not to exist. For the others, if the claim is that the deity is well and truly hidden and there can never be evidence for their existence, then I feel it's rational to dismiss those claims, in kind, without evidence.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    >> that most people (who do not have such instinct) will choose a different, more logical and beneficial, behavior. > Do you have evidence for any part of this statement? I do not understand which evidence you need. You yourself explained that your choice is the result of an instinct. I said that people who have no such instinct will behave differently. It's true by definition. Ok, the "most" part of my sentence is controversial. Maybe I'm wrong, but I definitely can't see a lot of volunteers in the world that behave counter to their own egoistic, logical goals. > And I feel that the benefits provided to me and my life, as I've previously described, make it rational for me to behave this way on an individual level. There are no benefits to you and your life. Prove otherwise. > there can never be evidence for their existence I never said this. You do not understand what all of this has to do with the meaning of Universe, because you fail to understand that, without it, there are no reasons to think long-term for each logical individual. You should explain where you find such reasons and I don't see that you could.

fsflover 3y ago

> No, not random, a choice honed by thousands of years of natural selection. OK, you have just stated that you do not use logic when making decisions about your life long-term but instincts. I was searching for logical reasons to behave empathically. With a strict, mathematical logic, if you will. And I don't see it. > Do you have evidence for any part of this statement? Do you have evidence that most people on Earth are involved in a volunteer activity that has no benefit for them in this life? AFAIK it's the opposite: true volunteering is a rarity. (Although following instincts is of course popular.) > For one, all of the reasons I've previously stated are, in my opinion, solid reasons for behaving with a long-term view. I disagree. From the natural selection's point of view, it's true. From the point of view of one person, it isn't. > To me, "ordinary science" is all there is I fully agree with you here. However, our current knowldege is not all there is. > and I would expect that if there were some higher being that created the universe, we would see evidence of that being This is a naive view of such entity. The world might be more complicated than this. For instance, some religions explain that it would not want you to know this, because you should have a free will and your own path to grow and not a path of a follower of a god.

angoragoats 3y ago
> Do you have evidence that most people on Earth are involved in a volunteer activity that has no benefit for them in this life? I never claimed that, and since you responded to my request for evidence with a question implying that I hold a position I do not hold, I'll assume you have no evidence and dismiss your claim. > From the natural selection's point of view, it's true. From the point of view of one person, it isn't. Why? Natural selection is not a conscious entity and therefore cannot possibly have a point of view. And I feel that the benefits provided to me and my life, as I've previously described, make it rational for me to behave this way on an individual level. > This is a naive view of such entity. The world might be more complicated than this. For instance, some religions explain that it would not want you to know this, because you should have a free will and your own path to grow and not a path of a follower of a god. OK, let's break this down: the fact that there has never been any established scientific evidence for a creator means that those deities that are not described as remaining hidden are likely not to exist. For the others, if the claim is that the deity is well and truly hidden and there can never be evidence for their existence, then I feel it's rational to dismiss those claims, in kind, without evidence.
- fsflover 3y ago
  >> that most people (who do not have such instinct) will choose a different, more logical and beneficial, behavior. > Do you have evidence for any part of this statement? I do not understand which evidence you need. You yourself explained that your choice is the result of an instinct. I said that people who have no such instinct will behave differently. It's true by definition. Ok, the "most" part of my sentence is controversial. Maybe I'm wrong, but I definitely can't see a lot of volunteers in the world that behave counter to their own egoistic, logical goals. > And I feel that the benefits provided to me and my life, as I've previously described, make it rational for me to behave this way on an individual level. There are no benefits to you and your life. Prove otherwise. > there can never be evidence for their existence I never said this. You do not understand what all of this has to do with the meaning of Universe, because you fail to understand that, without it, there are no reasons to think long-term for each logical individual. You should explain where you find such reasons and I don't see that you could.