Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
CiG
Room with a View
Most religious people are heavily involved in community activity and that's the west, it's way more pronounced in Africa, the middle east, Asia etc. The crisis of meaning really seems to me to be a problem for the irreligious community to worry about, and that includes me.
Dak
mentat
Well it's possible that things are safer in a private company's hands but not necessarily. The "public/private partnership" options in this domain, with the Federal pressure involved, make me skeptical of any sort of one-off sort of protection.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Please don't take this as crude, but I think it's only not a problem for people who don't reflect on the ontological parameters of meaning (and as you said, you aren't a member of that group). If spiritual people remain confident in a fixed set of axioms that guarantee meaning, then they won't encounter any crisis. Of course, they will continue to encounter an unrelentingly material reality that undermines their beliefs, forcing them to rationalize their positions. As long as science keeps developing its knowledge of the Higgs Boson, neutrinos, etc. spirituality will have to answer by fortifying their assumptions about reality.
I don't think Bakker has much concern or time for spiritual people. For him, the unknown "outside" isn't the abode of a deity, but something more like the uncaring plane of the Old Ones, the "mad, black Deleuzianism" of Nick Land, the cosmic vortex that Rust Cohle stares down in the finale of True Detective. All metaphorically speaking, of course--but the basic idea is the same: that there is a reality that exceeds meaning, and spiritual people color this dark space in with the empyrean light of eternal godliness.
It may be the case that those who "believe" are able to fend off the semantic apocalypse, but only for so long; because if the outside isn't a humanist deity that crafted us in its own image, then it probably doesn't give a shit whether we "believe" or not.
To paraphrase Hemingway, we'll die like dogs, and for no good reason.
No prob! And I agree with your suspicions. Bakker is pretty confident in the evolution of superintelligent AI, and that seems to be a crux for his argument. He seems to speak from a certain teleological perspective that assumes history had to develop a certain way. Whether this is actually what he thinks or whether it's just a consequence of the way he talks about it, I'm not sure. But I will say that I think AI are just necessary for the semantic apocalypse (as he calls it) to come to pass. I think the conditions for which it could come to pass are still present, regardless of whether it happens.
CiG
Room with a View
I don't really know how a spiritual and/or religious person thinks about meaning and how much of an impact science has on the meaning they derive from their faith and the teachings/standards they choose to live by in relation to said faith, I've been an atheist since childhood, but I have a gut feeling that the development of science is rather irrelevant to those deeply held beliefs that inform their everyday actions and more broadly the way they conceptualize meaning in their lives.
I think in some respect the modern phenomenon of young western white males running off to join jihadists is a product of the meaning-hole left in the west by the death of Christianity.
I think in some respect the modern phenomenon of young western white males running off to join jihadists is a product of the meaning-hole left in the west by the death of Christianity.
Dak
mentat
CiG
Room with a View
Einherjar86
Active Member
I mean (
), that's what I was saying. I do believe there are spiritual people who reflect on the parameters of belief, but the vast majority do not. And the thought of doing so would be earth-shattering. This is why I asked my post not to be seen as "crude"--because it's a particular kind of narrow-minded individual who can't themselves to reflect on the structure of their conviction.I don't think science has much impact on people of such conviction; but part of Bakker's point is that the universe doesn't care what you believe. And when it threatens us existentially--by one means or another--science will be the only protection we have. People can choose to keep believing whatever they want, but there comes a point when meaning (especially hermetically sealed meaning) simply can't stand against the horror of matter.
I think that people need to differentiate between "meaning" and "awe." You can be awed by something in a very experiential way and not need to conceptualize it in a meaningful way. My very religious family has told me that God creating humanity was a miracle. But I quite simply find it infinitely more miraculous that no one created humanity--that humanity just happened. That sounds like a miracle to me, and I'm awed by it. But I don't find any meaning in it. It's a meaningless accident.
In the wake of the "death of Christianity," people are scrambling to find new ways to conceptualize our place in the universe. I think this is a misguided practice, and I agree with you that it leads to extreme behaviors. These behaviors are people's attempts to devise meaning for an increasingly complex modern world.
CiG
Room with a View
I mean (
I think a flaw in this line of thought is that, unlike the irreligious, those people aren't as fundamentally opposed to the eradication of life or even the planet itself due directly to their religious belief in the afterlife. "Take no thought for the morrow" and so on. This is a big part of why you probably won't ever see religious people or religiously governed countries making a big deal about climate science and environmentalism.
Even the more progressive Christians have shown that theories like evolution don't shake the faith, they just incorporate it into "God's plan" and go on with their day.
I definitely agree with you here. Again, this just speaks to the massive lack of similarity between how the religious and irreligious think about these things. They see God's hand in something and derive meaning from the idea that God does everything for a reason and we all have our purpose etc etc and you and I see a meaningless event that inspires a similar amount of awe. I'm not sure how we can ever bridge such a chasm.
I think this also explains much of the highly energized political activism which seems to take on a hyper-personal character with many people. Humans imo by their nature will create meaning when they inherit none from their family or society at large. It seems to be part and parcel of consciousness.
Dak
mentat
CiG
Room with a View
I think history shows that while meaning via collectivism is a constant and seems to come naturally to most people, finding meaning via an individualistic approach takes much more convincing. Just because majority of atheists and secularists don't belong to a church it doesn't mean they never attend churches by other names.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Vegard Pompey
ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
And this is why I participate in the GMD yearly polls.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think that's the funniest anyone has ever been in the "Dakryn's Batshit Theories" thread.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
