“My life has no larger purpose beyond whatever purpose I choose to give it. I simply am. Ultimately I exist because living beings merely seek to advance the survival of their kind.”

“My life serves a purpose in some larger plan. I don’t know all the details; I can’t foresee every aspect of the final goal. But ultimately I know there is a reason for my existence that transcends this reality.”

How is one statement more or less an expression of personal, subjective belief – of faith one might say – than the other?

I'd say they're more or less equivalent in that respect. But I'm curious about other folks' take.

Some of us would agree with both your statements equally :-) I suppose it defines how one sees the concept of self.

I would think that the context that you presented in the two statements is be important. Since you placed both in the first person ("I"), the first one seems very strange while the second sounds more human at least.

If you put the question at a slightly greater remove by saying "one," as in "[One's] life has no larger purpose beyond whatever purpose [one] choose[s] to give it. [One] simply [is]. Ultimately [an individual] exist because living beings merely (?) seek to advance the survival of their kind,” then both are reasonable statements but the modified one still has a problem. The individual doesn't actually seek the survival of its "kind." The genes do that and use the individual as the to to achieve that end (forgive the anthropromorhizing:). (And, btw, the use of "merely" represents a value judgement that I don't accept.)

The first is a genetic/biological view that won't naturally enter the introspection of an individual human but is ultimately correct. In that line, I would say that the first reflects a scientific reality while the second is more of a subjective belief in a purpose. That individual purpose in the second statement is useful in providing motivation to achieving the goal of life presented in the first statement.

The short duration of an individual human existance doesn't support taking the long view of genetic survival and intellectually internalizing it into an individual goal.

It's late and I'm going to bed. Did the above make sense? It's hard to tell after midnight.

For my part, I don't find your first statement to be much of a leap, Havelock. Aside from perhaps the statement on 'survival of their kind,' which I wouldn't make personally. It's pretty close to how I choose to live; no purpose but what I give it.

Of course, what's the practical difference between 'whatever purpose I choose to give it' and 'I know there is a reason' when the 'I know' part is a leap. If you have no reason for it, it's as much a choice as the first -- though perhaps influenced by indoctrination.

They differ in the sense that the first is sane, the second nonsense.

I wouldn;t call that 'equivalent'

Start with your question and work backwards...

"How is one statement more or less an expression of personal, subjective belief – of faith one might say – than the other?"

Define "belief" and "faith". Now, define "fact" and "knowledge".

Doesn't the latter typically involve physical, material reality and PROVABLE suppositions or theories....while the former is based on unprovable suppositions and little or no material proof.

Therefore by the definitions of "fact" and "knowledge" versus "belief" or "faith"...which scenario is more factual and based in reality?

The first, right? Ergo, it is not a "faith" or "belief" but acceptance of the physical evidence.

No equivalency in the two scenarios.

I'd say that the first is a bit more rational, based on the personal, sensory experiences of the individual, but both are suppositional, it seems to me...

“My life has no larger purpose beyond whatever purpose I choose to give it. I simply am. Ultimately I exist because living beings merely seek to advance the survival of their kind.”

“My life serves a purpose in some larger plan. I don’t know all the details; I can’t foresee every aspect of the final goal. But ultimately I know there is a reason for my existence that transcends this reality.”

******************************­******************************­*********

Okay, I'll give you my take on it:

"My life probably has no larger purpose beyond whatever purpose I choose to give it, though I suppose there's chance that it serves a purpose in some larger plan too, that I don't quite get.

I may simply be a repository for genes, DNA, and the survival of the same. On the other hand, there may be some aspect of my 'self' that will transcend this reality, and its sometimes just nice to think about that, even if its just a coping mechanism."

Let's replace the abstract and widely believed portions of your statements with something a little more concrete.

"My destiny is not controlled by Zeus. Zeus does not give my life purpose, nor is the earth's existence explained by an act of copulation between Ouranus and Gaia, nor is the existence of myself and other humans explained by Deaucalion and Pyrrha throwing rocks over their shoulders after Zeus caused a worldwide flood."

"My destiny is controlled by Zeus. I don't know all the details; I can't foresee every aspect of the final goal. But ultimately I know Zeus controls my destiny."

For most of us, the idea that those two statements are somehow equally faith-based would sound absurd. Now, when it is stated vaguely enough, you end up with something that adherents of all religions which believe in one or more personal gods might agree on - but it would be very difficult to claim that belief in a personal God, and lack of belief in a personal God, are equally faith-based. I know in your second statement you said nothing about a personal God, but it's implied by words like "purpose" and "plan."

There's a wee bit of faith involved in your atheist statement, but I wouldn't say they're "more or less equivalent in that respect". To amend your first statement to something which requires much less faith, I might state it like this: “My life has no known larger purpose beyond whatever purpose I choose to give it." I have no idea why ultimately I exist, so I just left that bit out completely.

I do believe the two statements can be reconciled, much in the way that konark_girl does below. If that’s what you mean, I agree with you. Otherwise I’m not at all sure what you’re trying to say.

Not that there’s anything especially unusual about that.

Cheers.

But I think I’ve understood your reply well enough. You say you think the first statement sounds odd being stated in the first person, but that it’s correct and reflects objective scientific reality. The second statement you consider to be subjective, but you recognize that subjective belief may well provide an individual with motivation and, I presume, with some comfort. Is that about right?

Assuming I have understood you properly I’m curious about one thing. How have you scientifically determined that our lives have no purpose that transcends this reality?

Cheers.

I like this, and find it resonant with my own philosophical approach, although I'm increasing inclined to consider that the phrase "whatever purpose I choose to give it" may be a delusion - IOW, free will is a local illusion; our choices are the sum of an incalculable number of variables over which we have no control.

I suppose this is dangerously close to dd's thinking in some ways (though my take on predestination does not include planning, oversight, or judgment by any entity), but the evidence is strongly pointing in that direction, both from the role genetics plays in our personalities to the fascinating reports from the neuroscientists on the "hindsight" role of consciousness in decision-making.

...and always there is the sense that we even if we are part of some greater "purpose", our individual lives are completely irrelevant to it - just as we could not survive without the trillion bacteria in our gut, but the life & death of any individual bacterium is beneath triviality.

So it seems to me anyway. Certainly some folks are going to be more comfortable with one leap or the other for a whole variety of reasons. Upbringing is one of those reasons. Personal history… How one fits or doesn’t fit into the larger society… There are lots of factors. Whatever their causes, the ways that people rationalize their leaps of faith are particularly interesting. One way, clearly, is by insisting that there’s not much of a leap at all.

By the way, I agree that the practical implications of the two statements for one’s personal moral/ethical philosophy may be very different. anxiousmofo touches on this in his reply below. As for my personal embrace of the two statements, konark_girl sums it up pretty well.

Thanks.

I know you can manage to be a little more thoughtful than that.

You know tip, sometimes I’m more than a little jealous of you. Sometimes I think I’d like to live where you do. It appears to be a neighborhood where compromise, incrementalism, and diplomacy are signs of a faltering will and a wavering commitment to justice, where decent and fair-minded folks embrace you and everyone else is simply the enemy. But other times I think it’s better to live in a locale without easy truths and well-defined battle lines.

It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world, eh?

Cheers.

I agree that “facts” and “knowledge” typically involve material reality and suppositions or theories that are well-supported by objective, repeatable observations.

So then, what objective, repeatable observations are you using to support your theory that our lives have no purpose that transcends this reality? What physical evidence do you have for this? What physical evidence can you have for this?

Cheers.