When the Mormon missionaries visit my home, we often invite them in.
Once I was asked, “If you don’t believe in God, then what is the
meaning of life?”.
After talking with them, I could see that what they meant was purpose.
Their beliefs gave them purpose and direction. They knew what they
needed to do, and acting on those beliefs gave them comfort and
satisfaction. In the face of the unknown and uncertain, they could
place trust in the plan of their Heavenly Father.
From their perspective without God there is nothing but the unknown
and uncertain. Life would be shallow, purposeless and frightening,
and would in fact be Hell.
I wasn’t sure how to explain to them why, without God, I found
purpose in exploring my life, challenging the unknown and uncertain
that I find within myself.
Instead it gives us the awareness we need to transform our
circumstances.
I am not Buddhist but I like the epistemic rationality of Buddhism.
It provides a purpose for life and a how-to guide that seems to get
to the core of the human condition.
I am not Buddhist but I like the epistemic rationality of Buddhism. It provides a purpose for life and a how-to guide that seems to get to the core of the human condition.
I agree, it’s potent stuff, especially when combined with modern tools like CBT: you can see how a strong rationalist might grow up on science, Buddhism, and CBT alone.
In my experience rationalists generally come from the Liberal-Scientific-Secular-Buddhist crowd or the Libertarian-Techno-Furutist-Objectivist crowd, and the old Liberals and the old Libertarians tend to eye each others’ origin stories with a cocked eyebrow. I of course still think my old team was the better, more Enlightened one.
Context creates meaning and in its absence there is no meaning. To discuss meaning we also need to discuss context.
Perplexed suggests a personalized context.
When the Mormon missionaries visit my home, we often invite them in. Once I was asked, “If you don’t believe in God, then what is the meaning of life?”.
After talking with them, I could see that what they meant was purpose. Their beliefs gave them purpose and direction. They knew what they needed to do, and acting on those beliefs gave them comfort and satisfaction. In the face of the unknown and uncertain, they could place trust in the plan of their Heavenly Father.
From their perspective without God there is nothing but the unknown and uncertain. Life would be shallow, purposeless and frightening, and would in fact be Hell.
I wasn’t sure how to explain to them why, without God, I found purpose in exploring my life, challenging the unknown and uncertain that I find within myself.
In Buddhism, the primary purpose of life is to end suffering.
Much of this is about being willing to see the world as it is, not as we want it to be.
This doesn’t mean that we simply become comfortable with the status quo. This is explained well in Radical Buddhism and the Paradox of Acceptance.
Instead it gives us the awareness we need to transform our circumstances.
I am not Buddhist but I like the epistemic rationality of Buddhism. It provides a purpose for life and a how-to guide that seems to get to the core of the human condition.
I agree, it’s potent stuff, especially when combined with modern tools like CBT: you can see how a strong rationalist might grow up on science, Buddhism, and CBT alone.
In my experience rationalists generally come from the Liberal-Scientific-Secular-Buddhist crowd or the Libertarian-Techno-Furutist-Objectivist crowd, and the old Liberals and the old Libertarians tend to eye each others’ origin stories with a cocked eyebrow. I of course still think my old team was the better, more Enlightened one.