|
martian
first, i'd like to draw a distinction with something you included in your op: i don't think its accurate to state that all atheists necessarily believe that we are here simply due to random chance. as i understand it, atheism implies the lack of belief in a deity; i think this definition leaves a bit more room for inclusion of different spiritual/philosophical beliefs than what i could call strict reductionists who believe its all the result of some sterile process of physics.
in my own thoughts, i find that even the strict reductionist view requires its own brand of faith, which is inherent in the philosophical position. namely, it requires faith that the world of physics is sufficient to describe all that is occurring, and that cutting off one's search for knowledge at that point does not exclude information necessary for the pursuit of philosophical inquiry.
i personally view philosophy as the ultimate study of everything, such that all other studies fall under it in some fashion. thus, i view physicists as philosophers, whether they are aware of it or not; philosophers who study a particular branch of knowledge. i personally don't believe that this study of knowledge can be used to explain everything, but i also believe its a crucial piece of the puzzle. thus, i wouldn't put physicists at odds with philosophy, and i don't know that i would draw the distinction so clearly as one looking inwards, with the other looking outwards. i would argue that the knowledge gained by internal reflection is not valid if it doesn't match with outward perception; thus the "philosopher" must also look outwards. the physicist's interpretation of his/her perceptions are inherently altered by his own tools for perception and analysis, thus his rules and laws are inherently affected by his internal workings.
more specifically, for your question at the tail end of the op: i would tend to think that a person who accepts faith as a way to ascribe this sense of higher meaning you're talking about is putting the cart before the horse. i would tend to think that one should attempt to find the particular lense they view reality through first, whether that be a standard theistic belief, or another philosophical approach, first - then the views on questions of higher meaning would tend to follow from this.
as far as i can understand it, we are all part of a larger holarchial structure; accepting the terms we have created for our understanding of the world around us, we typically view subatomic particles to be constituents of atoms, atoms constituents of molecules, molecules constituent of biological structures, biological structures constituent of social structures, and so forth. we can view each as distinct strata in our knowledge of what we are a part of, and yet each can be broken into smaller pieces, and each makes up larger pieces. as such, i find some meaning in knowing that i am part of reality, and that as such many things occuring are essentially outside the scope of my ability to perceive them or have strong affects on them. i don't think this means i can't affect them at all, or that i have surrendered free will in the process, but that my potential affects are somewhat commisserate with where i fall in the scheme of things. i do not know that i find the type of meaning that you are talking about, as though it were part of a video game with a final level with a Big Boss to defeat or something of that nature. i think that one can find meaning in simply existing, and trying to bend your existance into alignment with your morals / ethics to the extent of your abilities, subject to moral constraints.
i also find it interesting that people who state that they have no faith, would seem to have faith in the simple fact that they do, in fact, exist at all and that reality is, well...real.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|