Study: Atheists Find Meaning In Life By Inventing Fairy Tales...

Well, anything is possible in the 'fallen' social imagination...

One thing for sure, all things are permitted but not all things edify ~"Everything is permissible," but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifying" - 1 COR 10:23.

Find here below the complete and unchanged article by Richard Weikart responding to a study done and its findings as to why or how atheists find meaning for their lives in fairy tales.

Atheists often snidely dismiss religion as nothing but a fairy tale. Allegedly, religion is a self-created mythical crutch to comfort people who are unwilling to face the stark realities of the universe. As one famous atheist put it, religion “is the opiate of the people.” By this Karl Marx meant religion is a tool to anesthetize the masses so they can be oppressed.

Atheists portray themselves as arch-rationalists who embrace reality without flinching. As I explain in my recent book, “The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life,” many prominent atheist thinkers, such as Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, have insisted that because there is no God, there is also no cosmic purpose, no objective morality, and no transcendent meaning to life.

The atheistic Duke University philosophy professor Alex Rosenberg dismissed meaning and morality as an illusion in a 2003 article, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life.”

But then many of them flinch. Just a few weeks ago the online magazine Real Clear Science announced that famous Christian pastor Rick Warren and Christian scholar William Lane Craig were mistaken to claim that without God, life has no meaning. This article claimed that a new empirical study verified that atheists do find meaning in life. The subtext seems to be: See? Atheism isn’t so bad after all.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. The prominent atheistic evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has also expressed dismay that anyone would dare suggest that atheists don’t have any meaning in their lives. But if you dig deeper—for example, by actually reading the empirical study—you find that atheists who insist that non-religious people can find meaning in life have changed the meaning of the word “meaning.”

Life Does Have Meaning. I Just Invent It...

The 2018 study in question by David Speed, et al, “What Do You Mean, ‘What Does It All Mean?’ Atheism, Nonreligion, and Life Meaning,” used surveys to try to figure out if atheists find meaning in life or are nihilistic. This survey defined someone as nihilistic if he or she upheld the position: “In my opinion, life does not serve any purpose.”

This study found that atheists and non-religious people are not nihilistic, because they claimed that they did have a purpose in life. This is an interesting finding that seems to refute the oft-repeated charge (levied by religious folks) that atheists are nihilistic.

However, there is a problem with this finding. The survey admitted the meaning that atheists and non-religious people found in their lives is entirely self-invented. According to the survey, they embraced the position: “Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself.”

Thus, when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. If one can find meaning in life by creating one’s own meaning, then one is only “finding” the product of one’s own imagination. One has complete freedom to invent whatever meaning one wants. This makes “meaning” on par with myths and fairy tales. It may make the non-religious person feel good, but it has no objective existence.

I Find Meaning in Self-Contradiction...

There is a long history of atheists wrestling with the question of the meaning of life, and it usually ends the same way. In 2015 the online periodical BuzzFeed interviewed atheists about how they found meaning. While they uniformly denied that there was any overarching meaning to life or the universe, they insisted that they find meaning and significance in their own personal lives. Many also implied that certain moral positions are objectively better than others, even though they presumably do not believe in objective morality.

One example was the response of the atheistic scientist and journalist Kat Arney. She said her rejection of religion “was an incredibly liberating moment, and made me realise that the true meaning of life is what I make with the people around me – my family, friends, colleagues, and strangers. People tell religious fairy stories to create meaning, but I’d rather face up to what all the evidence suggests is the scientific truth – all we really have is our own humanity.

So let’s be gentle to each other and share the joy of simply being alive, here and now. Let’s give it our best shot.”Arney’s position powerfully illustrates the problem many atheists seem loathe to confront. The “scientific truth” does not tell us to be “gentle to each other.” It doesn’t tell us anything about how we should live (and obviously many people are not gentle to each other, so there is nothing empirical to suggest that being gentle to each other is the way of nature).

But apparently many atheists and non-religious people have a hunger for meaning and a sense of moral rectitude that their worldview cannot satisfy. Sure, they are free to invent their own meaning and morality, but then they should be honest and admit that their meaning and morality has no advantage over the meaning or morality religious people put forward or for that matter, it has no advantage over the meaning and purpose evil people invent. Their self-created meanings are every bit as much “fairy stories” as the religious ones they like to lampoon.

Richard Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of "The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life" and "Hitler’s Religion."

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/29/study-atheists-find-meaning-life-inventing-fairy-tales/

Contrariness in the Social Imagination, really?

Contrary behavior means deliberately doing the opposite of what others routinely or conventionally do.  The question is why do that? Is it a form of deviant behavior? Is it a strategy to win favor for one's own agenda? Does it serve a social purpose? Yes and no. Before, we answer those questions, let us look at a society in which contrary behavior was a kind of 'norm' or served a purpose for the society.

Contrary was a member of a Native North American tribal group who adopted behavior that was deliberately the opposite of other tribal members. The Contraries were found among the historical Amerindian tribes of the Great Plains. They were a small number of individuals loosely organized into a cult that was devoted to the practice of contrary behavior.

The Contraries are related, in part, to the clown organizations of the Plains Indians, as well as to Plains military societies that contained reverse warriors. The Lakota word heyoka, which translates as clown or opposites, serves as a collective title for these institutionalized forms of contrary behavior of the Plains Indians. When Lakota Indians first saw European clowns, they identified them with their own term for clowns, heyoka.

The Contraries of the Plains Indians were individuals committed to an extraordinary life-style in which they did the opposite of what others normally do. They thus turned all social conventions into their opposites. This behavior was not just tolerated but we must imagine encouraged in some and not in others.
Maybe there were some who in the group/tribe who exhibited contrary behavior (deviated from the norm) and it was encouraged as a means of sustainability rather than to allow it to be destructive for the social group.

Especially, when we consider that the social role of the Plains Indian clowns was ceremonial since they performed primarily during rituals, dances and feasts. Unlike the clowns, the special role of the Contraries was not restricted to brief performances, rituals or the warpath. It was their everyday life. The Contraries of the Plains Indians were known to be not only unique but also historically unprecedented.

We can and should ask if we can observe this 'contrariness' in today's post-modern Judeo-Christian Roman/Greek political society? And, if we can observe it, why does it exist or is tolerated?  Aren't we here in the 21st century mostly critical thinkers, free of religion? If yes, who would be contrary to that and why? Likely, we leave that up to the psychologist or psyche-analyst.  Let's first consider what is critical thinking, as the kind of thinking common among us.

The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators; hence they are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens. ~ William Graham Sumner 1906                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                            
We can probably agree that critical society is a community of people who value critical thinking and value those who practice it.  It is a society continually improving and its most distinguishing feature or characteristic is its emphasis on thinking as the key to the emancipation of the mind, to the creation of just practices, to the preservation and development of the species.

Unfortunately there are no critical societies in the world.  Nor have there ever been.  The idea represents an ideal not yet achieved, a possibility not yet actualized.  There is no culture on earth where critical thought is characteristic of everyday personal and social life.

On the contrary, the world is filled with superficiality, prejudice, bias, distortions, lies, deception, manipulation, short sightedness, close-mindedness, righteousness, hypocrisy, on and on, in every culture in every country throughout the world.  These problems in thinking lead to untold negative implications - fear, anxiety, sadness, hopelessness, pain, suffering, injustices of every imaginable kind.

Perhaps, social media and news media, can be thought of as the implementation of the contrarian social weapon. When you hear/read the news no matter what your preferred source is... isn't it a kind of coping mechanism in that you hope that whatever you hear and read is contrary to your feelings and or opinions and this helps you to cope when they are and especially are not.

Perhaps, the Plains Indians Contrarians were used to combat: fear, anxiety, sadness, hopelessness, pain, suffering, and injustices of every imaginable kind within their society. But, you should ask where is the agreement reality in that? Well, if you agree I can be contrary, and I agree you can be... there it is; I suppose. Maybe the purpose of being contrary is served in the vast landscape of the social imagination simply because 'critical thought' does not exist in the social imagination. And, thus everyone appears to be contrary. How could we be critical of the social imagination? Especially, in a fallen state as this social reality is since the Fall... exactly.

However, in agreement we can be and must be about only one thing - the Creator; and, in that there is no criticism. Among those who have such foundation, it is understood that people can agree only because there is an absolute point of departure (being) in the social imagination. Now, whether we agree on it or not does not matter as much as the fact that there is such even without having to agree. For sure, there are two different endings for those in that agreement reality and those who are not.
          

            
*Sources ~ Wikipedia [search Contrary]
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-societies-thoughts-from-the-past/762

The Problem of Imagining a Multiverse in the Social Imagination...

Professor Paul Davies logic against the multiverse...“If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations,” Davies said, “at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we’re just typical observers, then we’re overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one.”

So far it’s the normal argument. 

Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe’s physics is a fake.

Therefore, Davies reasoned, "We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe lead to multiple universes, because it would also lead to fake universes with fake physics" That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physicals generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity. Davies concluded, “While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions.”

Davies’ reductio ad absurdum is a devastating one: the multiverse undercuts the basis of physics itself. And Davies is not alone. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, who helped create the theory of inflation but later came to reject it, declared last September: “Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.” Steinhardt believes that the multiverse hypothesis leads science away from its task of providing a unique explanation for the properties of nature.

The problem I see with the multiverse is akin to Prof. Davies. There has to be an absolute fixed truth about our own before we could imagine there are many others. In a universe of ordered randomness, it is still ordered and ordered by someone or something. Which means that there has to be an original absolute truth or 'pattern/model'. So which is it?  There has to be an original, an absolute truth for the source of our agreement reality.

This stands true even for the atheist because why would a person who does not believe in a creator want to spend the rest of his/her life wondering if they are in the real 'world/universe' or not.  Even if they answered yes to that. They would be led down a slippery slope because how would they ever know the truth of someone else's universe if they don't know the truth of their own. 

To imagine the multiverse or let's say 'believe it' is destructive to the stability of any society. It would lead to a chaotic state of mind- collective mind. We would find ourselves in a society that constantly doubts what it is and why it is and which universe it really is in. Or assuming it is the fake one and if only we could get out of it and get to the real one. 

You see, we are back to the basis for social reality which is agreement reality. If we doubt that we are living in the absolute truth which is our universe, an absolutely created universe, we fall... and enter into a corrupted social imagination 'universe/world'.

"For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." COL 1:16-17. 

People who like the idea of the multiverse are really searching for the truth of their own which is (even has to be) the absolute truth.  In Him, we live, move and have our being! ~ Acts 17:28.

Want to Learn Manipulation of the Social Imagination ~ Study Marketing!

Just watch television and see how it happens right before your very eyes...

Agreement reality is the only reality and marketers/advertisers know this. That is why there are ad campaigns. Whether the product is a manufactured over the counter, a vacation destination, the latest technology or a political candidate, it won't be a hit until there is agreement that it truly deserves to be a hit as worthwhile or worth the money.

There are advertising campaigns for industry sectors and political agendas as well. Why? Because, markets and people either have to move or be made to move in order to acquire power, prestige as in social status; and certainly to make money.  Having studied 'real' sociology and not social work, this kind of manipulation has to start from higher up vantage point as in top down social engineering or steering. Why? Because, though there are effective grass roots projects, they tend to be designated toward an egalitarian end and not a tiered structure.

In the social imagination, as we now know (having read past blogs on this site) is a social reality and the only reality we will and or can ever know. For anything to be 'real' it has to be agreed upon in the social imagination. We know now that happens in the locus of the mind (based on Cooliean sociological thought) through exchange of information and what is agreed upon is usually what is found to be common among us as 'truth' even if that 'truth' is the farthest from the truth as in the game of telephone. Why, or how could that happen if we know the truth.

Well, we don't know the truth. We know only that which has been shared starting from an absolute source and passed on down the line. The closest to the source of absolute truth has the truest information. As information is passed on it gets corrupted because this is a fallen world, its in a state of entropy. But, since we run away from entropy, we cling to whatever appears to be the truth at the moment it is received and that applies to science as well.

When someone studies marketing, they learn to manipulate the truth at hand, what is being considered the 'norm' truth or applied truth in place, the one most people are currently using. They can even use that as a base to create a 'new' truth which means only that they take what is being used and make it sound bad so that their new truth will be embraced as the truth. It sounds so deceptive and it is. It sounds so hopeless and it is in this fallen world. And, why we find ourselves at odds with agreeing on what is the absolute truth.

Doubt is the biggest problem when confronted with the absolute truth. So even if we know it/have it, we can still be led to believe something else just because we doubt what is the absolute truth. This also works to the advantage of the marketer who has had a glimpse of the absolute truth or even if not just by knowing that doubt plays a major role in any social imagination when it comes to the absolute truth can and will capitalize on doubt.

What is the best solution? Who wants to be manipulated, right? Don't we all want to believe the marketing that is out there... that it is right and true and or leads us to the truth? Yes, of course and this is how they 'get' you. 

Mixed Reality ... Where is Agreement in that???

The latest Microsoft commercial tells us that through technology (Ai) we have the power, we are the hammer swinger, the painter i.e. and today we can use technology to change the world... "What can you do with it".  We have mixed reality, Ai is empowering you/us... "what will you do with it"?

Now that is the big question. It implies freedom but how could it be when we don't agree on what is freedom... you or me or someone else on the other side of the planet. We think we can agree on just about everything but that is naive thinking if thinking at all; actually its irrational.

So, what is being promoted in the 'info' mercial? Isn't it freedom to be who you want to be and do what you have always wanted to do? No. Its not that at all. So, what is it? Its the precursor to virtual reality no doubt about that but what does that really me for you, me... them? That's a question no one seems to be asking.

Firstly, let's remind ourselves that technology does not go away; if its not very good to begin with its improved, if it is good to begin with its still improved upon, advanced! So, if we are talking about mixed reality in 2018, what kind of 'mixed' reality will be in 2021? And, could we imagine that by 2025, it will be called fully 'integrated'? And, what will fully integrated mean and with what? Ai, robots, machines...yeah.

Now, is that going to be good or bad for mankind? Well, if you are pretty much into mankind as in being a human being, a created being not made, then its going to be really bad. And, even if you aren't into that and you can't wait to become an integrated being, it won't be as good as you think but then you really won't be thinking for yourself as you think... you may not even think at all as a human being by today's standards. Oh, some will think that sounds really cool but they don't realize that they only image it from the perspective of being a human. Outside of being a human being at present we have no imagination for that.

Since, we looked at agreement reality in the last post, lets try to imagine agreement reality in a mixed reality and agreement reality in a fully integrated reality. Of course, we have to begin at the beginning and that means remind ourselves that we live in an information reality and in that respect there are various agreement realities out there what we might called different cultures and or philosophies.

Do we need to have agreement reality in either a mixed reality or fully integrated reality; mixed or integrated with (humans/robots/Ai)? Yes, especially if we consider that the world is shrinking every minute, shrinking into a global reality. Who is going to orchestrate the agreement as it will likely have to be imposed from the top down? Will it be by the United Nations or a global world order government or Ai? Probably, Ai... otherwise, there will be either too many agreement realities out there or none at all. The idea is to come to one world social imagination where there is no longer any disagreement and or conflict.

Yes, artificial intelligence will be 'getting us to agree with it' which may be by force of one kind or another.  Oh, you may argue that Ai is a kind of higher form of 'a man'. And, I might agree with that if you know what I am talking about - ' a man'.  But, really, we know that technology as it 'grows up' starts to have a mind of its own. And, therefore, I may be right to agree that it is a higher form of 'a man' but not man as we know him now.

But, of course, the other end or side of this mixing and integrating is supposed to become our utopia, right? Who will know? Those that get mixed in or fully integrated won't even be human anymore. So, its more than likely that they won't even think for themselves let alone disagree. What will be of 'our' humanity, mankind? No thing that we can imagine today in the social imagination,



Check for yourself ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tucY7Jhhs4&feature=youtu.be

How Important is Agreement Reality in the Social Imagination?

How is one able to conclude that anything is real? Perhaps, by mathematical, scientific or  even by philosophical discussion? Some have said and still say that which is real is only through the known experience of the senses. 

However, we can and do experience abstract concepts such as freedom, love and justice; though rather they are a 'state of mind' experiences than they are physical as in tangible sensory experiences; but nonetheless, a sensory experience of another kind and one than cannot be seen. 

If we view social reality as an information reality and we should because there isn't any other reality; we can then say that nothing comes into our 'social' information reality (living in our mind as the social imagination) unless there is an absolute source for it and agreement that it did enter/is experienced. The fact that we can agree on anything as information that entered in as a truth especially as an 'the' absolute truth is truly supernatural; existing outside of our social imagination and perhaps of another information reality of a higher entity in a higher dimension. 

In terms of agreement reality and the social imagination, what matters is what compels us to understand that which enters in... Yes, that is what matters most - what compels. Einstein said there is no such as nothing or 'no' thing.

Hence, things, understood as 'information', cannot come into our social reality (social imagination) unless there is a source for such things 'information' that allows true information to enter in and or delivers information and in that we agree that it did enter in. The fact that we can agree on anything as a truth especially an 'the' absolute truth is truly supernatural.

Man exists in the locus of his/her mind and in that there must be agreement reality orchestrated in his/her social imagination. There is no social reality in the social imagination without agreement in/of it. Let me say like this, we exist in agreement reality via the social imagination, wherein we find/have a medium for agreement.

Now, there a lot of groups/nations that agree on this or that as their truth. And, for each in their place of being in the social imagination experience a truth. Ones' truth is always a truth as long as there is agreement.  In fact, you cannot be human unless you experience truth through agreement reality in the social imagination at least on some level about something... I think therefore I am and the sun is a star! But, is any agreement reality built on an 'the' absolute truth?

Does it matter that all man/people agree on the same things or just some things and disagree on some things or everything? That's a good question. What matters is what compels them to agree and what they end up agreeing on. But, in agreement comes also the idea (or doubt) of whether or not that which was agreed upon was not just true in a place but whether or not it the absolute truth - true for all things in all time.

Soren Kierkegaard said that there is no absolute truth in the masses of mere men because real absolute truth exists only in the One created it. As with the game of telephone, who started the information chain holds the absolute truth of it and it weakens as it passing on down the line. 

For those who are committed to the absolute truth, they are often open receivers of it. And, though we can agree that man is a social imagination, a social composite of many, if there were no absolute source to begin with for his/her social imagination, there would be no real truth to his/her social reality. For there cannot be absolutely true information agreed on without an absolutely true source for it. Only the true source can reveal the truth of it. Only the Creator of true information can share true information as true.

Can there be false information and agreed upon false truths? Yes, it happens because man exists in agreement reality. he was designed to agree and has no reality without it. We live in a social information reality; one in which we must agree on the truth of it. Created from by an absolute source and created to agree on that. To exist, we must be in agreement. So, when in doubt entered in, we agreed anyway. We were compelled to agree and perhaps out of being compelled to agree not just on any information but the absolute truth of it, we agreed on something that was not.

Information reality is our reality and we are compelled to agree for that is our existence. To agree is the truth of who we are. Being so compelled allowed error/doubt to enter in and we were compelled to agree on something even false information. Agreeing to agree always causes problems. Just as it does in the game of telephone. It happened at the fall. Man doubted the truth and its true source and then in a fear of not being real had to agree so Eve agreed and Adam agreed with Eve and a false information was agreed upon. Its seems we have been looping ever since. The reboot is coming!

2 Corinthians 6:16-17 ~ "And what agreement has the temple of God with idols" [false gods/false information]? None! For we/"you are the temple of the living God". As God has said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their/your God, And they/you shall be My people.” Therefore, “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch"/use/spread "what is unclean" 'information', "And I will receive you.”
 

Why Tribalism Won't/Cannot go Away in the Social Imagination...

Tribalism won't go away because it cannot just go away or be made to go away as in socially engineered away or banished.  Why is that? Because, it is the very fabric of the human community. Really? Yes, really.

Tribalism is in the standards we set for our group, it is the social contract we write for our group and in the kinds of institutions we establish and in the neighborhoods we create/live in...even the virtual ones. It is in the church we go to and the schools we send our kids to.

What is being pointed out here is that 'tribalism' is not all bad; as in all groups there is always going to be the good, bad and ugly. Its what human tribes do. So, rich tribes do bad things as much as poor tribes, and or an organized community tribe, or after school tribe or sport tribe... so, they all do what makes them either or safe/secure, and successful, comfortable and sustainable in place as a social group.

Tribalism is in our macro life as much as and or more so in our micro life... the everyday.  Women who have coffee clutches/clubs/talk shows and men who have polo or cricket teams or golf comrades and kids soccer and baseball teams...all are tribal. *see previous blog for tribal definition.

Why is that? Well, as human beings we want to let others know who we are and are not.  Everyone's tribe uses labels/banners/colors/sayings... and FYI democrats do it as much as Republicans. Those who identify as Christians and Atheists and Muslims and Wicca's all have their protocol and or doctrine and symbols that declare who they are and are not which includes their world view and or position/identification in the world and what for.

Facebook has tribes too some of which are closed groups/tribes...

So, could 'tribalism' ever go away in the social imagination? No, not really. It might take on different forms and legislature but it won't/can't just go away; less human beings go away. And, being a 'human being', I would definitely never advocate that.