Wait. To our best knowledge we don't know whether there is a meaning of life, right? And it would be irrational to act based on a conjectured purpose if there isn't solid evidence for it. So even if we will burn in hell if we don't destroy ourselves, there is no solid evidence for that, so it would be irrational to do so. The best way of proceeding is then to keep our options open as long as possible. Our quasi-purpose is to find out whether there is a purpose in the first place.
Well, we do know about evolution, and you can make some inferences about the utility of life and that of our species based on that. Would it be based on partial information? Maybe. The point is - you can give any meaning that you want to your life, but meaning isn't just something that you choose one day and stick to it. Every reason that you make will essentially be bound to this ultimate purpose that you assign yourself to. It takes years of conscious effort before your "choice" reflects your "life".
I mean that we are obliged to look for meaning just so that we consider the possibility that there indeed is meaning, so that we can act accordingly to avoid ending up in hell (or a similar place). And by that I don't mean the introspective, philosophical, non-falsifiable kind of meaning, but meaning somewhere encoded in the laws of physics, say, we are in a simulation and our creator will punish us if we destroy our planet.
If there's a heaven and a hell, who goes there? Will you go there? Will I go there?
Who is this 'I'? Is 'I' a collection of thoughts and feelings? Does 'I' include some semblance of physical appearance? Where does this 'I' start and end? If 'I' eat an apple, is it still an apple or is it now 'I'?
I realise these are tricky questions to think about, please try not to worry. If it helps, I can tell you that I've less fear of death after taking time to think about this sort of stuff, I hope in time you'll find a sense of peace too. If you want to explore it some more, I'm here for you.
It's a mass of particles the whole time. It's a bread roll when it plays the causal role, or set of such roles, which we term a bread roll. It's "I" when it plays the causal role we term "I".
Sure, but then the question becomes... Where does "I" start and end? For example, the air in your lungs, is that part of "I"? If it is, where does it stop being part of "I"?
This reasoning immediately follows from an agnostic, scientific epistemology. A hypothetical theory of 'I' is 'a collection of elementary particles brought forth by evolution due to certain dynamics that are best described by quantum field theory and general relativity'. Who goes to hell depends on the particular situation we find ourselves in. Perhaps environmentalists would be spared.
I would describe myself as agnostic, but I don't believe science has anything meaningful to say about spiritual/philosophical matters. Science is concerned with what's testable/measurable, we're not talking about anything testable/measurable.
I'll try explaining the whole heaven/hell thing again. What does hell look like to you? Is it millions of former people being tortured for not living a virtuous life? If you go to hell, what part of you goes to hell? Do the former people in hell have bodies and faces? Do the former people keep their memories of their past life? Do the former people still think like the people they once were as humans?
No, I'm only talking about the testable and the potentially testable. I mentioned hell and God just as an example of a potential reality which imposes meaning on our existence. I'm referring to a literally testable God through some scientific experiment.
Okay, so let's say that we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. Let's also say we've managed to prove heaven and hell exist. The question still remains, what part of you goes to heaven or hell?
This is really poor reasoning and is just making up magical conditions. What if we figure out it's a simulation and our creators get upset because it's no longer fun for them and torture us?
A "meaning of life" in the sense you're referring to implies two things...
1. That there was a creator of life that predetermined what our lives should mean.
2. That no other meaning except for the one described in point 1 is valid.
It doesn't work that way, meaning is not singular and is not preset. A "meaning of life" sounds like a rational idea but you can't condense life down to a single meaningful goal without losing its essence. Life is what you make it.
How can you prove, though, that meaning is neither singular, preset and nor condensable to a single goal? What if god does exist? Then it would be rational to act in a way that pleases god and thus it should be our goal to find out whether that is the case.
Let's explore that idea, what if a god exists... A god that designed us for a single purpose...
Why would a god that needed us to fulfil a singular purpose give us the power to choose to not fulfil that purpose? Why would a god choose a purpose and then not clearly communicate that purpose? Why would a god give us the capacity for reflection and awareness, allowing us to derive our own meanings, if none of those meanings were valid?
What would a single meaning of life even look like? Let's take a guess and say that love is the meaning of life. That would mean the only point of life was love. All the other experiences? Meaningless. Says who? Who says they're meaningless?
"A meaning" is like "a sock". There is only one true sock, all other socks are false, only those that have this sock can truly know what a sock is, etc... You're trying to condense a potentially infinite group to a single example.
As for the whole "beneficial to us" thing, in what sense? The whole "life after death" thing? Something else?
In any sense. Why should we assume that our creator is sane? Perhaps they sell toy universes at the counter in grocery stores and we are in the hands of some cruel teenager in our host universe. Perhaps they run simulations to find a particular outcome of evolution. Maybe we are in some sort of digestive organ of a god which feasts on evolutionary structures which perform complex computations.
If the creator is insane, and is silent, then it seems unlikely anything you could do would reliably appease it.
Also, if you accept that any possibility is potentially the reality in which we inhabit, then it's possible that you are god. Now you could be god, what do you want to do with your life?
If we could establish a communication channel to the creator we could perhaps negotiate a transfer of all consciousnesses on Earth to the host universe. Maybe the creator isn't even aware of us and would simply shut us down if we wouldn't establish contact.
The possibility of solipsism cannot be excluded, but it also seems to be very difficult to test. I don't want to spend too much time thinking about it, because there are two approaches of broadening our knowledge which appear to have lower hanging fruit: The theory of mind and the theory of everything.
There's another possibility that the universe doesn't need a creator, it has always existed, going through a cycle between 'big bang' and 'big crunch'. That doesn't exclude the possibility of higher powers within the universe (or multiverse if that idea floats your boat).
A universe without a creator might seem scary to those who have been brought up to believe in a creator, but how would it affect your day to day life? The pleasure and the pain found within existence is just as real as it was before, you can still take time to reflect on the nature of existence as it's a fascinating but unanswerable question, the only real difference is taking advice from different sources about the path you take through life.
Furthermore, if there is a God, and this God designed us, then our natural state is what God intended us to experience. By separating ourselves from the life that surrounds us we can disconnect from these experiences. How can a God judge you for living according to the nature it designed?
I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. We're not able to determine whether God exists or not, so I accept the possibility that it does exist as well as the possibility that it doesn't. Instead of looking for answers to impossible questions, seems better to explore the possibilities of the existence we can experience.
That's not what I mean. I mean that we need to actively look for intrinsic meaning of our existence, just to have the case covered that there really is a grand purpose and that we will be disadvantaged if we don't act in accordance to it.
