Well, we do know about evolution, and you can make some inferences about the utility of life and that of our species based on that. Would it be based on partial information? Maybe. The point is - you can give any meaning that you want to your life, but meaning isn't just something that you choose one day and stick to it. Every reason that you make will essentially be bound to this ultimate purpose that you assign yourself to. It takes years of conscious effort before your "choice" reflects your "life".
I mean that we are obliged to look for meaning just so that we consider the possibility that there indeed is meaning, so that we can act accordingly to avoid ending up in hell (or a similar place). And by that I don't mean the introspective, philosophical, non-falsifiable kind of meaning, but meaning somewhere encoded in the laws of physics, say, we are in a simulation and our creator will punish us if we destroy our planet.
If there's a heaven and a hell, who goes there? Will you go there? Will I go there?
Who is this 'I'? Is 'I' a collection of thoughts and feelings? Does 'I' include some semblance of physical appearance? Where does this 'I' start and end? If 'I' eat an apple, is it still an apple or is it now 'I'?
I realise these are tricky questions to think about, please try not to worry. If it helps, I can tell you that I've less fear of death after taking time to think about this sort of stuff, I hope in time you'll find a sense of peace too. If you want to explore it some more, I'm here for you.
It's a mass of particles the whole time. It's a bread roll when it plays the causal role, or set of such roles, which we term a bread roll. It's "I" when it plays the causal role we term "I".
Sure, but then the question becomes... Where does "I" start and end? For example, the air in your lungs, is that part of "I"? If it is, where does it stop being part of "I"?
This reasoning immediately follows from an agnostic, scientific epistemology. A hypothetical theory of 'I' is 'a collection of elementary particles brought forth by evolution due to certain dynamics that are best described by quantum field theory and general relativity'. Who goes to hell depends on the particular situation we find ourselves in. Perhaps environmentalists would be spared.
I would describe myself as agnostic, but I don't believe science has anything meaningful to say about spiritual/philosophical matters. Science is concerned with what's testable/measurable, we're not talking about anything testable/measurable.
I'll try explaining the whole heaven/hell thing again. What does hell look like to you? Is it millions of former people being tortured for not living a virtuous life? If you go to hell, what part of you goes to hell? Do the former people in hell have bodies and faces? Do the former people keep their memories of their past life? Do the former people still think like the people they once were as humans?
No, I'm only talking about the testable and the potentially testable. I mentioned hell and God just as an example of a potential reality which imposes meaning on our existence. I'm referring to a literally testable God through some scientific experiment.
Okay, so let's say that we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. Let's also say we've managed to prove heaven and hell exist. The question still remains, what part of you goes to heaven or hell?
This is really poor reasoning and is just making up magical conditions. What if we figure out it's a simulation and our creators get upset because it's no longer fun for them and torture us?
