Illusory and real meaning?

[Qoeleth]

It seems as if ‘meaning’ in life is important. ‘Meaning’ in this context means some meta-narrative or teleological schemata, which gives a purpose to life. It seems people have a need, or at least a tendency, to seek such a teleology.

Now, imagine the case someone who based their life on an ‘illusory’ meaning. Say, someone dedicated their life to religion that proved to be false. Let’s imagine, for example, a devotee of Apollo. Although Apollo might not objectively exist, the person in question found a ‘meaning’ and ‘inspiration’ in their activities, through this ‘illusory meaning.’

Now, let’s imagine that, on the basis of this ‘illusory meaning’, a person led a ‘good life’- with a certain amount of joy, a certain amount of creativity, generally without causing harm to others.

Or, in this context, would their be an value in dismantling an ‘illusory meaning?’

More specifically, for the atheist (to whom all meanings are necessarily illusory, or at best ‘constructed’), is there any value in challenging what (according to their point of view) are the ‘illusory meanings’ of other people’s live?

I ask this question, because I cannot understand why atheists try to convince religious believers that they are wrong. Why this dedication to ‘truth’ (as they see it), above ‘meaning’?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It seems as if ‘meaning’ in life is important. ‘Meaning’ in this context means some meta-narrative or teleological schemata, which gives a purpose to life. It seems people have a need, or at least a tendency, to seek such a teleology.

Now, imagine the case someone who based their life on an ‘illusory’ meaning. Say, someone dedicated their life to religion that proved to be false. Let’s imagine, for example, a devotee of Apollo. Although Apollo might not objectively exist, the person in question found a ‘meaning’ and ‘inspiration’ in their activities, through this ‘illusory meaning.’

Now, let’s imagine that, on the basis of this ‘illusory meaning’, a person led a ‘good life’- with a certain amount of joy, a certain amount of creativity, generally without causing harm to others.

Or, in this context, would their be an value in dismantling an ‘illusory meaning?’

More specifically, for the atheist (to whom all meanings are necessarily illusory, or at best ‘constructed’), is there any value in challenging what (according to their point of view) are the ‘illusory meanings’ of other people’s live?

I ask this question, because I cannot understand why atheists try to convince religious believers that they are wrong. Why this dedication to ‘truth’ (as they see it), above ‘meaning’?

That’s really a two way street. And not everyone travels it.

But, I think it boils down to temperament and/or pride. Also, people see though the eyes that they have.

Bill Maher comes to mind. I’ve heard him make the statement that religion causes more war than anything else; or something to that effect. But that is not the truth. Fascism, communism and poor decision making (like WW l alliances) have lead to far more war and death and destruction than the Muslims vs. Christians conflicts or any other “wars” based on religion.

 

[inocente]

More specifically, for the atheist (to whom all meanings are necessarily illusory, or at best ‘constructed’)

Doesn’t follow - it would be a false dilemma to say the choice must either be one single shared meaning of life for everyone, or else no meaning is possible at all.

I’d have thought most people find their own meaning, meaningful to them if not to others. More real to them than any meaning which others may try to impose.

I ask this question, because I cannot understand why atheists try to convince religious believers that they are wrong. Why this dedication to ‘truth’ (as they see it), above ‘meaning’?

Perhaps some atheists agree with CCC 2467, which quotes Dignitatis Humanae saying man is “bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth”. That’s in a document which argues for freedom of belief, which hopefully means non-Catholics are free to disagree about whether we really have any such moral obligation.

 

[Vico]

It seems as if ‘meaning’ in life is important. ‘Meaning’ in this context means some meta-narrative or teleological schemata, which gives a purpose to life. It seems people have a need, or at least a tendency, to seek such a teleology.

Now, imagine the case someone who based their life on an ‘illusory’ meaning. Say, someone dedicated their life to religion that proved to be false. Let’s imagine, for example, a devotee of Apollo. Although Apollo might not objectively exist, the person in question found a ‘meaning’ and ‘inspiration’ in their activities, through this ‘illusory meaning.’

Now, let’s imagine that, on the basis of this ‘illusory meaning’, a person led a ‘good life’- with a certain amount of joy, a certain amount of creativity, generally without causing harm to others.

Or, in this context, would their be an value in dismantling an ‘illusory meaning?’

More specifically, for the atheist (to whom all meanings are necessarily illusory, or at best ‘constructed’), is there any value in challenging what (according to their point of view) are the ‘illusory meanings’ of other people’s live?

I ask this question, because I cannot understand why atheists try to convince religious believers that they are wrong. Why this dedication to ‘truth’ (as they see it), above ‘meaning’?

The word meaning has different senses, for example (Collins Dictionary). So do you mean sense 3?

meaning, noun

1. the sense or significance of a word, sentence, symbol, etc; import; semantic or lexical content
2. the purpose underlying or intended by speech, action, etc
3. the inner, symbolic, or true interpretation, value, or message ⇒ the meaning of a dream
4. valid content; efficacy ⇒ a law with little or no meaning
5. philosophy
   a. the sense of an expression; its connotation
   b. the reference of an expression; its denotation. In recent philosophical writings meaning can be used in both the above senses. See also sense (sense 12)

sense 12, noun
logic, linguistics
a. the import of an expression as contrasted with its referent. Thus the morning star and the evening star have the same reference, Venus, but different senses
b. the property of an expression by virtue of which its referent is determined
c. that which one grasps in understanding an expression