The Good Place

I'm not trying to start another of those materialism versus immaterialism arguments.

What I'm asking is why - if materialism were true - life would be less meaningful than it would be if it wasn't true. Why do people assume that? Is it to do with beliefs about free-will, or God, or something else?

I hope Sci doesn't mind that I've de-railed this thread (sorry) If you do, Sci just say and I'll stop.

 Chris said > "What I'm asking is why - if materialism were true - life would be less meaningful than it would be if it wasn't true."

"Meaning" is a broad concept but doesn't it at least have something to do with (a)reason? Everyday experience and the accumulation of the necessities of life is a reason to live but ultimately, it doesn't seem to satisfy for most people, anyway. 

Logically, which has more meaning.

Baby A (biological robot) born into an existence created by chance with no ultimate destination, accidentally dies just after birth.

Baby B (many times returning spirit) born into existence that was created for it to develop and grow, accidentally dies just after birth.

Baby B gets as many chances as it requires and desires plus it can always reflect on what it previously created, to improve.

Baby A is sadly just annihilated.

Or maybe - judging from Tim's comment - the assumption is that life is more meaningful if it continues after physical death?

All of what you wrote plus Tim's comment. Often I've heard what's the point of living if only to die?

Thank you for replying. But I must admit I didn't understand much of what you wrote.

He forgets he's conversing with normal people.

I hope Sci doesn't mind that I've de-railed this thread (sorry) If you do, Sci just say and I'll stop.

I don't mind.

I hope Sci doesn't mind that I've de-railed this thread (sorry) If you do, Sci just say and I'll stop.

 Chris said > "What I'm asking is why - if materialism were true - life would be less meaningful than it would be if it wasn't true."

"Meaning" is a broad concept but doesn't it at least have something to do with (a)reason? Everyday experience and the accumulation of the necessities of life is a reason to live but ultimately, it doesn't seem to satisfy for most people, anyway. 

Logically, which has more meaning.

Baby A (biological robot) born into an existence created by chance with no ultimate destination, accidentally dies just after birth.

Baby B (many times returning spirit) born into existence that was created for it to develop and grow, accidentally dies just after birth.

Baby B gets as many chances as it requires and desires plus it can always reflect on what it previously created, to improve.

Baby A is sadly just annihilated.

So for you, it has to do with (1) the belief that the universe was created for a purpose and (2) the belief that individuals survive death and develop after death (through reincarnation?).

He forgets he's conversing with normal people.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be normal.

So for you, it has to do with (1) the belief that the universe was created for a purpose and (2) the belief that individuals survive death and develop after death (through reincarnation?).

Would that not make life more meaningful ? Doesn't mean that it's true, of course.

Would that not make life more meaningful ? Doesn't mean that it's true, of course.

Yes, I can see the logic of belief in a creator making life more meaningful. I'm not so sure about the logic of post-mortem survival making life more meaningful, though I can understand why it might make it feel more meaningful.

But those things are a bit beyond immaterialism per se, aren't they? Materialism rules them out, but not all immaterialists believe in them. From previous discussions, I've got the impression that most people here aren't deists*, and I think not all psi proponents believe in post-mortem survival.

(* Sorry, I meant theists. I didn't understand the meaning of the word deist.)

I'm not so sure about the logic of post-mortem survival making life more meaningful, though I can understand why it might make it feel more meaningful.

A single, never repeated existence, between zero and however many years (0-120) in a universe that is billions of years old is hardly satisfactory (logically). Such an existence is arguably irrelevant and not worth having, notwithstanding that there is just as much pain and heartache as there is joy and pleasure.

So for you, it has to do with (1) the belief that the universe was created for a purpose and (2) the belief that individuals survive death and develop after death (through reincarnation?).

I feel I have to weigh-in on Tim's side of the discussion here. It is not something I can prove but neither is it something I consider mere faith; perhaps it comes down to core belief and mine is that all that exists has purpose. That doesn't lead me to adopt a religious outlook or worship some anthropomorphic god but it does imbue life with meaning.

When I look at science, my view is holistic and I see teleology and purpose. Whether it is in the fine tuning of the physical universe, the sublime complexity of biological life or the morality of humans, there seems to me to be ample evidence of that purpose. In that view, reincarnation makes perfect sense but a complex universe, from stars to human brains to consciousness all emerging through a series of flukes rendering everything meaningless makes no sense at all. One could say that it doesn't have to make sense and if that satisfies you, then fine but it doesn't satisfy me.