Science can't answer these questions

1. Is existence meaningful, absurd, or both?



Meaningful to whom?


The individual has to be that answer


Each individual very obviously makes that determination


Yes life has meaning



Because some individuals infuse it with meaning


Some choose not to imbue it with meaning


It still has meaning for those willing to ember it with meaning


Choosing not to is a choice
 
How should I live my life? Does it matter?


In a way that gives you real life satisfaction


If you choose not to be satisfied that is a choice
 
3. Do I need other people? Why? How?



It’s proven humans need other humans


Medical science has proven that
 
What does death mean, if anything?


It means no longer being a functioning human being


That has been proven by science
 
evince said:
1. Is existence meaningful, absurd, or both?



Meaningful to whom?


The individual has to be that answer


Each individual very obviously makes that determination


Yes life has meaning



Because some individuals infuse it with meaning


Some choose not to imbue it with meaning


It still has meaning for those willing to ember it with meaning


Choosing not to is a choice
Click to expand...

If the individual has to discover for themselves how to live a meaningful life, then the answer isn't printed in a physics, chemistry, or biology textbook.
 
evince said:
What does death mean, if anything?


It means no longer being a functioning human being


That has been proven by science
Click to expand...

My mother and father's values/spirit/memory/wisdom live on in me and in my grandchildren, so to me their death has meaning beyond the cessation of biological functions.

Religious people also think there is some meaning and significance in death beyond the biological
 
ZenMode said:
About the only reason I can think of, beyond the sometimes negative mental impact of isolation, is an evolutionary benefit of living with others. The more "others" there are, the more likely it is that you keep your offspring alive.
Click to expand...

Knowing about the neurochemistry and physiological response to strict isolation is interesting, but Paleolithic hunters didn't need modern science to be aware they are social animals.

I didn't read question 2 as neccesarily being just about strict and permanent isolation. The question to me is about how and why humans should relate to each other.

The Greeks thought the polis was an ideal form of community.

The Taoists and Buddhists sometimes advocated a type of social withdrawal from political and social life.

Thoreau's On Walden Pond advocated a quiet contemplation away from the bustle of the civilization.

Confucians thought a well ordered society should be based on the concepts of filial piety.
 
ZenMode said:
Again, understanding "that" isn't the same as understanding "why". I can't imagine not seeing the benefit of a more thorough understanding of the human brain. Wouldn't it be nice to base ideas like morality on something objective and not the perceived desires of imaginary beings?
Click to expand...

I have never in the history of science seen a discussion of ethics.
 
evince said:
How should I live my life? Does it matter?


In a way that gives you real life satisfaction


If you choose not to be satisfied that is a choice
Click to expand...

I don't think we can insist there is one right answer.

But we should be open to the power of the question.

Some people are nihilists or fatalists, and think there is no ultimate meaning to life, and that hedonism is the proper response to a meaningless universe.

Personal self fulfillment is certainly another response to the question of how to live life.

The saintly approach of life lived in service to others is another one.

A fatalistic response is to just get through life as best you can and hope for the best, because we're all dead in the end - none of it really matters in the end
 
Cypress said:
I don't think we can insist there is one right answer.

But we should be open to the power of the question.

Some people are nihilists or fatalists, and think there is no ultimate meaning to life, and that hedonism is the proper response to a meaningless universe.

Personal self fulfillment is certainly another response to the question of how to live life.

The saintly approach of life lived in service to others is another one.

A fatalistic response is to just get through life as best you can and hope for the best, because we're all dead in the end - none of it really matters in the end
Click to expand...

I think there is one right answer



No matter what you choose to believe on a basis of faith



Strive to live well with others and your environment


Anything else is illogical behavior designed for failure


We are beings that are designed by evolution to live in a cooperative manner


We are the smartest beings we know of with the ability to physically transform our environent


That means we have the responsibility to act as earths life forms caretakers


We have the intelligence to gather facts and take the best informed actions


We don’t


That means we kill everything


Pretty stupid thing to do for a smart animal
 
The saintly approach of life lived in service to others is another one.


Which is how humans fulfill what is inside us


If you can get to the point that you don’t fear the emotion of compassion you will be saintly

It’s the deepest joy to have the knowledge you have truly helped someone



I try to help people


It brings me joy


I can’t always muster it


But I try to be in that mind frame as much as this non-saint can
 
Cypress said:
My mother and father's values/spirit/memory/wisdom live on in me and in my grandchildren, so to me their death has meaning beyond the cessation of biological functions.

Religious people also think there is some meaning and significance in death beyond the biological
Click to expand...


Bless them


I’m sorry they no longer exist


I’m glad they taught you to be happy.


Being moral and being kind was the correct path
 
I guess it depends on what people consider to be science.

The study of near-death-experiences is scientific. So are past & between life regressions, and even channelings.

There is a lot of information in all of the research surrounding these things that addresses all of the questions in the OP. I wouldn't say it's all final & solved, but there is strong evidence for each (imo).
 
BartenderElite said:
I guess it depends on what people consider to be science.

The study of near-death-experiences is scientific. So are past & between life regressions, and even channelings.

There is a lot of information in all of the research surrounding these things that addresses all of the questions in the OP. I wouldn't say it's all final & solved, but there is strong evidence for each (imo).
Click to expand...

I do not think any scientist proved a person had a past life.
 
BartenderElite said:
Proven? Maybe not. But study in these fields isn't some hokey, new age thing. Experts in these fields study & research like everyone, and an overwhelming body of evidence suggests that we live many lives.
Click to expand...

I have never seen any scientist confirm a past life, nor state it is possible. How would you test it?
 
BidenPresident said:
I have never seen any scientist confirm a past life, nor state it is possible. How would you test it?
Click to expand...

Have you looked into that area of study?

There is some remarkable stuff. Because the mechanics of it are outside the physical plane, I'm not sure a scientist could truly confirm it. But a lot of science is like that (i.e. things like the Big Bang theory).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top