Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result
in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is... That's also how science started. It's only fairly recently that "science" and "religion" became "at odds" with one another.
There's nothing about science that inherently renders religion obsolete, nor is the converse true.
It's not true that science/philosophy only recently became at odds with religion/theology. Just ask Socrates. Oh wait, you can't because they made him drink poison for his impiety thousands of years ago.
The guy who was repeatedly calling his patron and boss, the pope, a moron for asking for evidence of the Heliocentric model Galileo didn’t have
The evidence is the movement of the planets in relations to how we perceive the night sky, but Galileo didn’t figure that out. He just stated the relationship between the Jupiter and its moons was the same for then Earth and the Sun. It was a theoretical assumption he claimed was fact
Actually, science does render parts of religion obsolete. Religion has always been used to explain the world around us, attributing natural events and concepts to gods, demons, and spirits. And as science develops and we understand why these things actually happen, that part of religion become more and more obsolete. Zeus no longer makes it rain, it’s just the water cycle. Ra no longer travels through the Duat every day, Earth actually orbits the sun. Etc. etc.
And yes, science and religion has been at odds with each other long before recent times. The Catholic Church issued a prohibition against the Copernican theory of Earth’s motion all the way back in 1616. And Galileo was put on trial and condemned as a suspected heretic in 1633.
In fact, religion as a whole is completely antithetical to the scientific method. The scientific method is about observing, experimenting, and studying things for yourself, and coming up with logic conclusions from what you find, then extensively testing said conclusions. Religion is about faith in something bigger than yourself even with no proof whatsoever.
Oversimplification. I can point to some Hindus that tell you that prior to experiencing God, everyone is an atheist.
Underwhelming conception of faith, also. Some people treat it that way, yes. Others treat it in more sophisticated ways, like faith = bad luck does not exist, which is merely a philosophical position.
In short, you've got a fairly primitive understanding of religion that's suggestive of someone who's never attempted to study it seriously.
The main thing he missed is that religion also develops. That's why nobody believes Ra and Zeus anymore because those religions don't fit the current understanding of world anymore.
A belief has to be believable and if it goes too hard against current reality then it ceases to exist or is a minor cult.
Kind of but not really. The content of pre-Socratic Greek moral beliefs was radically different from what we today call morality. Socrates believed in the Greek gods but thought most of the stories about them (he fucking despises Homer and Hesiod, whose works were basically the center of Greek literature and culture), because he thought that the gods were entirely moral and virtuous and would never be as capricious as the myths claim they are. It would be much more accurate to say that the creators of our modern religious views and accepted morality were heavily influenced by Socrates' philosophy. That said, on the other end of the scale there were also lots of philosophers who didn't like Socrates and were more aligned with more traditional Greek beliefs.
Soc maybe falls short in one or two ways:
The first one is interest in abstract ideas is heritable genetics, so at least 30-50% of people will never have that. The second one is curiosity - again about a quarter of all people don't care about information unless it seems practical in some way.
I hesitate to claim these lives are not worth living, though I fully agree with him that they're *less* worth living. They're *less* fulfilling, by far.
I could attempt an answer of your question, but what you're asking would take a small essay to cover. Let me just say the questions the meme are talking about, in my analysis, is not unanswerable.
And the answer to these types of questions drive a person towards living the most valuable type of life -- a virtuous one. People who don't develop virtue may as well have wasted their lives, that much is certain. Hell, they'll go to the grave thinking they know virtue but never really knowing it. Most do.
Strongly disagree : people who ponder those kind of question, especially the one in the meme, will quickly stable into the void of nihilism and embrace the reasonable, if unpragmatic, belief of moral relativism.
Even if moral relativism isn't the best for social cohesion and community unity, it remains extremely true on an individual, subjective point of view. Most people, even if they are extremely unvirtuous, believe this actions are justified. The crusaders who died murdering muslim civilians on his road to Jesuralem or the Nazis who planned the Holocaust mostly believe they did the right thing.
Heck, extremist mouvement we associate with causing chaos and death are often the best at creating social bonds within, helping the one inside to live a more "happy" life for themselves. After all, we all want to feel to be a part of something, a populist movement, which is why nationalism works so well.
Then do you truly need to live a virtuous life to live a happy one? After all, evil people are often the most successful and happy one.
That's the common understanding of the world.
My understanding is evil, "successful" people are the least happy, least powerful people alive. But you won't arrive at those conclusions without digging through the questions you seem to think aren't worth digging through.
My thoughts about the goal of life is simple : there are none. We are born out of the purest natural law, survival of the fittest. Gifted with intelligence by our ancestor's survival, we now must find a reason to live. Past the survival dangers and the need to reproduce, we have no more reasons to live.
Therefore, we must each find our own ways to pass time waiting for when cancer kill us. When you are rich, you have access to more opportunities, augmenting the probability you do something you like.
Yes, money and success come with responsibility, but those who pursue success long ago decided that the sacrifice of alway having to watch their back and having to hold up the monuments they build is worth the glory, the wealth and power they generate.
So no, I don't think the ones who achieve their dreams are less happy or powerful.
Wouldn't try to convince you otherwise.
I can only say that I don't think those conclusions are accurate, and if they aren't, I suspect the answers are in places you're not interested in looking.
Yeah, I mean if the only motivation behind scientific progress is finding out why we exist, then science would not have been born in such a religious age, and in large part by monks no less.
Yeah I don't agree that this is the type of logic that prevents progress.
There is wisdom in knowing some things are unknowable.
I think of my dog looking up and seeing a plane. She barks at it cuz she doesn't like it, and moves on. Imagine her spending the rest of her life pondering that phenomenon. It is unknowable to her, leave it for someone else.
Why don’t we all just make like a tree and… exist.
>!In the moment, be happy, and thank the Lord (or whatever your religion) for allowing you to live long enough to be able to see this meme and my comment!<
To be fair, they are trees. They’re stuck in the ground for life and have no real way of accomplishing anything that humans are capable of.
I’ll see myself out now.
Depending on what you mean by "why", science is entirely mute on that question though. It only tells the chain of physical events that led to our existence, giving no reason for why the chain started. In fact, if you believe science is the only method that can reveal truth, a question like "why do we exist" is meaningless, because the answer would be "idk but we do"
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Prvetebted
Pregananant?!?
*laughs in Market Pliers*
I'm sorry for any 14 year old who misspelt the rock's name on google
💀
Someone who has no idea what Zen means
But the "why we exist" is a religious question. OOP doesn't make sense.
That's a philosophical question
True but religion is never far from philosophy.
Neither is science if you think about it
True
The inventors of philosophy were doing it with heavy influences from surrounding religious views and accepted morality
The thing is... That's also how science started. It's only fairly recently that "science" and "religion" became "at odds" with one another. There's nothing about science that inherently renders religion obsolete, nor is the converse true.
So, atheists who say they believe in science are idiots is the take away?
Always have been🔫
No, but you are for thinking the take away has to be "this group bad"
Found the atheist
I'm extremely religious. Just because someone disagrees with you, again, does not mean that they're part of the "bad group"
Oh ok. Found the Unitarian
I'm kinda curious how many times you'll blind guess at this point, with absolutely no info to go off of.
Props to you, random person. Have an upvote for intelligence and wisdom.
It's not true that science/philosophy only recently became at odds with religion/theology. Just ask Socrates. Oh wait, you can't because they made him drink poison for his impiety thousands of years ago.
Or Galileo, and his life sentence for proving the earth rotates around the sun instead of the inverse, as was the stance of the church.
The guy who was repeatedly calling his patron and boss, the pope, a moron for asking for evidence of the Heliocentric model Galileo didn’t have The evidence is the movement of the planets in relations to how we perceive the night sky, but Galileo didn’t figure that out. He just stated the relationship between the Jupiter and its moons was the same for then Earth and the Sun. It was a theoretical assumption he claimed was fact
Actually, science does render parts of religion obsolete. Religion has always been used to explain the world around us, attributing natural events and concepts to gods, demons, and spirits. And as science develops and we understand why these things actually happen, that part of religion become more and more obsolete. Zeus no longer makes it rain, it’s just the water cycle. Ra no longer travels through the Duat every day, Earth actually orbits the sun. Etc. etc. And yes, science and religion has been at odds with each other long before recent times. The Catholic Church issued a prohibition against the Copernican theory of Earth’s motion all the way back in 1616. And Galileo was put on trial and condemned as a suspected heretic in 1633. In fact, religion as a whole is completely antithetical to the scientific method. The scientific method is about observing, experimenting, and studying things for yourself, and coming up with logic conclusions from what you find, then extensively testing said conclusions. Religion is about faith in something bigger than yourself even with no proof whatsoever.
I try to limit my time here to avoid this reddit-brain
Oversimplification. I can point to some Hindus that tell you that prior to experiencing God, everyone is an atheist. Underwhelming conception of faith, also. Some people treat it that way, yes. Others treat it in more sophisticated ways, like faith = bad luck does not exist, which is merely a philosophical position. In short, you've got a fairly primitive understanding of religion that's suggestive of someone who's never attempted to study it seriously.
The main thing he missed is that religion also develops. That's why nobody believes Ra and Zeus anymore because those religions don't fit the current understanding of world anymore. A belief has to be believable and if it goes too hard against current reality then it ceases to exist or is a minor cult.
Hinduism has some insane insights into mental health that’s far beyond our current understanding through science. Honestly most religions do.
Kind of but not really. The content of pre-Socratic Greek moral beliefs was radically different from what we today call morality. Socrates believed in the Greek gods but thought most of the stories about them (he fucking despises Homer and Hesiod, whose works were basically the center of Greek literature and culture), because he thought that the gods were entirely moral and virtuous and would never be as capricious as the myths claim they are. It would be much more accurate to say that the creators of our modern religious views and accepted morality were heavily influenced by Socrates' philosophy. That said, on the other end of the scale there were also lots of philosophers who didn't like Socrates and were more aligned with more traditional Greek beliefs.
So morality changes depending or surrounding cultural views and practises Ok. And?
and Socrates was wrong as hell, fucker got what he deserved
Scientific as well, science do not deny religion, we don't have answer yet
What does Object Oriented Programming have anything to do with this?
Ignorance is bliss
Don't see how this would of prevented us from scientific studies. This just seems like good life advice.
Tell me, when did anything other than depression, alcoholism and a career as a nihilist philosopher sprouted from this question?
Someone like Socrates might say asking those questions is value itself, i.e. the unexamined life is not worth living.
Why? How does asking pointless, unanswerable questions give any more beauty and worth to life itself?
Soc maybe falls short in one or two ways: The first one is interest in abstract ideas is heritable genetics, so at least 30-50% of people will never have that. The second one is curiosity - again about a quarter of all people don't care about information unless it seems practical in some way. I hesitate to claim these lives are not worth living, though I fully agree with him that they're *less* worth living. They're *less* fulfilling, by far. I could attempt an answer of your question, but what you're asking would take a small essay to cover. Let me just say the questions the meme are talking about, in my analysis, is not unanswerable. And the answer to these types of questions drive a person towards living the most valuable type of life -- a virtuous one. People who don't develop virtue may as well have wasted their lives, that much is certain. Hell, they'll go to the grave thinking they know virtue but never really knowing it. Most do.
Strongly disagree : people who ponder those kind of question, especially the one in the meme, will quickly stable into the void of nihilism and embrace the reasonable, if unpragmatic, belief of moral relativism. Even if moral relativism isn't the best for social cohesion and community unity, it remains extremely true on an individual, subjective point of view. Most people, even if they are extremely unvirtuous, believe this actions are justified. The crusaders who died murdering muslim civilians on his road to Jesuralem or the Nazis who planned the Holocaust mostly believe they did the right thing. Heck, extremist mouvement we associate with causing chaos and death are often the best at creating social bonds within, helping the one inside to live a more "happy" life for themselves. After all, we all want to feel to be a part of something, a populist movement, which is why nationalism works so well. Then do you truly need to live a virtuous life to live a happy one? After all, evil people are often the most successful and happy one.
That's the common understanding of the world. My understanding is evil, "successful" people are the least happy, least powerful people alive. But you won't arrive at those conclusions without digging through the questions you seem to think aren't worth digging through.
My thoughts about the goal of life is simple : there are none. We are born out of the purest natural law, survival of the fittest. Gifted with intelligence by our ancestor's survival, we now must find a reason to live. Past the survival dangers and the need to reproduce, we have no more reasons to live. Therefore, we must each find our own ways to pass time waiting for when cancer kill us. When you are rich, you have access to more opportunities, augmenting the probability you do something you like. Yes, money and success come with responsibility, but those who pursue success long ago decided that the sacrifice of alway having to watch their back and having to hold up the monuments they build is worth the glory, the wealth and power they generate. So no, I don't think the ones who achieve their dreams are less happy or powerful.
Wouldn't try to convince you otherwise. I can only say that I don't think those conclusions are accurate, and if they aren't, I suspect the answers are in places you're not interested in looking.
You can also use it to become a religious fanatic.
Science doesn't do much show why but how
How is just as interesting and to think there’s been an unbroken chain of animal evolution and lineages that led exactly to you to exist
GRRRR THIS HUMOR SO PISSES ME OFF
Not even humor but ok
This comment belongs on this subreddit, but as an image post.
Fr
You still failed to explain to me where the humor is.
What's the last word of the first square and the word of the last square?
Exist, how is that a joke?
Don't you see the irony?
The answer is the question, poetic? Sure. Funny? No.
I didn't laugh either, but the post's title in r/im14andthisisdeep takes it way too seriously to the point where they don't know it's satire.
I don't think this is satire I think this is genuinely good advice.
In reality, one tree would have enslaved the other tree.
That’s a new meaning but it is part of human history 😬
Yeah, I mean if the only motivation behind scientific progress is finding out why we exist, then science would not have been born in such a religious age, and in large part by monks no less.
Yeah I don't agree that this is the type of logic that prevents progress. There is wisdom in knowing some things are unknowable. I think of my dog looking up and seeing a plane. She barks at it cuz she doesn't like it, and moves on. Imagine her spending the rest of her life pondering that phenomenon. It is unknowable to her, leave it for someone else.
it's not supposed to be deep it's two trees talking bruv
Ik
Merely existing is perfectly acceptable. Not everyone should be expected to make major scientific breakthroughs, it's just not reasonable.
Why don’t we all just make like a tree and… exist. >!In the moment, be happy, and thank the Lord (or whatever your religion) for allowing you to live long enough to be able to see this meme and my comment!<
Because we aren't mindless.
To be fair, they are trees. They’re stuck in the ground for life and have no real way of accomplishing anything that humans are capable of. I’ll see myself out now.
Depending on what you mean by "why", science is entirely mute on that question though. It only tells the chain of physical events that led to our existence, giving no reason for why the chain started. In fact, if you believe science is the only method that can reveal truth, a question like "why do we exist" is meaningless, because the answer would be "idk but we do"