God and the Meaningful Life

[spetey]

Hi again DC&R debaters, I have another puzzler for you. I think it's an important one to consider.

In my experience, many people say they believe in God because God gives their lives meaning. This reason to believe involves two important claims that should be separated:

1. If God did not exist, life would not have sufficient "meaning".
2. This previous claim, if true, is itself reason to believe that God does exist.

(I should make it clear I mean, here, the traditional God of Abraham--the God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims--the one who gave Moses the 10 Commandments, and sent the flood, and who Christians think sent Jesus to die for our sins, etc.)

I think both of these claims are false. That is:

1. I think that life has plenty of "meaning" even though I think there is no God. For example: I still think the world is beautiful, that there is reason to be good to other people, that there is often reason for awe and humility in the face of nature, that life is a precious thing, and so on. In fact, I often think a life with a God would have less meaning, just as I think an adult life spent living with your parents has less "meaning" than when you strike out on your own.
2. Even if it were true that life would not have sufficient meaning without God, I don't think that would itself be reason to believe that there is a God. Compare this: even if it were true that without $1 million I can never be happy, I still don't think that alone is reason to think I have $1 million. That is, even if I really do need $1m to be happy (something I doubt), maybe the truth is I just don't have enough money to be happy. To believe I have that money just because I need it is to commit the wishful thinking fallacy.

Now I should say, I do think there are lots of good things that belief in God can do for people. For example, off the top of my head:

• It can bring people together in a community, for contemplation, celebration, and grieving.
• It can get people thinking about ethical issues.
• It can get people thinking about spiritual issues.
• It can encourage calm reflection and meditation.

But I think all of these can be had without belief in God. You could go, for example, to a Unitarian Universalist Church, where belief in God is not required, but where people think morally, reflect spiritually, grieve and celebrate, and so on.

Meanwhile I think belief in God encourages some very bad things:

• For many, it encourages faith--which is just belief without reason, and which many seem to agree is irresponsible (as in this thread).
• In particular, such faith appeals lead to impasses and intolerance when encountering cultures that disagree. As we have seen throughout history, this is a common cause for war and terrorism and the like.
• Belief in a non-material intelligence promotes a kind of magical, non-scientific thinking.
• It historically has promoted, and continues to promote, confused ethical values based solely on particular leaders' readings of "what the Sacred Text says".
• It has hindered, and continues to hinder, the progress of science (by resisting the Copernican revolution, or evolutionary theory...).

...and so on.

Well, that's plenty to start discussion. What do you think? Is life meaningless without God? Even if so, would this alone be reason to believe that God does exist?


spetey

[trencacloscas]

Well, with all this Dan Brown boom, maybe some would like to read the address of the camerlegno in chapter 94 of Angels And Demons. Not that Brown is a great writer, but this address compiles almost every cliché of the religious about the "meaningful life" and also presents the highest standard of ecclesiastical hypocrisy I read in quite some time (exception made for the opening speech of the new Catholic pope, of course).

[trencacloscas]

With pain in his voice, the camerlegno spoke of his late Pope . . . the victim of an Illuminati poisoning. And finally, his words almost a whisper, he spoke of a deadly new technology, antimatter, which in less than two hours threatened to destroy all of Vatican City. When he was through, it was as if Satan himself had sucked the air from the room. Nobody could move. The camerlegno's words hung in the darkness. The only sound Mortati could now hear was the anomalous hum of a television camera in back-an electronic presence no conclave in history had ever endured-but a presence demanded by the camerlegno. To the utter astonishment of the cardinals, the camerlegno had entered the Sistine Chapel with two BBC reporters-a man and a woman-and announced that they would be transmitting his solemn statement, live to the world. Now, speaking directly to the camera, the camerlegno stepped forward. "To the Illuminati," he said, his voice deepening, "and to those of science, let me say this." He paused. "You have won the war." The silence spread now to the deepest corners of the chapel. Mortati could hear the desperate thumping of his own heart. "The wheels have been in motion for a long time," the camerlegno said. "Your victory has been inevitable. Never before has it been as obvious as it is at this moment. Science is the new God." What is he saying! Mortati thought. Has he gone mad? The entire world is hearing this! "Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation . . . these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede." A rustle of confusion and bewilderment swept through the chapel. "But science's victory," the camerlegno added, his voice intensifying, "has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply." Silence. "Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident." He paused. "Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning . . . and all it finds is more questions."

Mortati watched in awe. The camerlegno was almost hypnotic now. He had a physical strength in his movements and voice that Mortati had never witnessed on a Vatican altar. The man's voice was wrought with conviction and sadness. "The ancient war between science and religion is over," the camerlegno said. "You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests-all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology." Mortati could feel himself leaning forward in his seat. He and the other cardinals and people around the world were hanging on this priest's every utterance. The camerlegno spoke with no rhetoric or vitriol. No references to scripture or Jesus Christ. He spoke in modern terms, unadorned and pure. Somehow, as though the words were flowing from God himself, he spoke the modern language . . . delivering the ancient message. In that moment, Mortati saw one of the reasons the late Pope held this young man so dear. In a world of apathy, cynicism, and technological deification, men like the camerlegno, realists who could speak to our souls like this man just had, were the church's only hope. The camerlegno was talking more forcefully now. "Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species . . . moving down a path of destruction." The camerlegno paused a long moment and then sharpened his eyes on the camera. "Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea. "To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You
proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning. "And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. But who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? This church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God!" The camerlegno had tears in his eyes now. "You ask what does God look like. I say, where did that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us? "Whether or not you believe in God," the camerlegno said, his voice deepening with deliberation, "you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith . . . all faiths . . . are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable . . . With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. If the outside world could see this church as I do . . . looking beyond the ritual of these walls . . . they would see a modern miracle . . . a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control." The camerlegno motioned out over the College of Cardinals, and the BBC camerawoman instinctively followed, panning the crowd. "Are we obsolete?" the camerlegno asked. "Are these men dino-saurs? Am I? Does the world really need a voice for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the unborn child? Do we really need souls like these who, though imperfect, spend their lives imploring each of us to read the signposts of morality and not lose our way?" Mortati now realized that the camerlegno, whether consciously or not, was making a brilliant move. By showing the cardinals, he was personalizing the church. Vatican City was no longer a building, it was people-people like the camerlegno who had spent their lives in the service of goodness. "Tonight we are perched on a precipice," the camerlegno said. "None of us can afford to be apathetic. Whether you see this evil as Satan, corruption, or immorality . . . the dark force is alive and growing every day. Do not ignore it." The camerlegno lowered his voice to a whisper, and the camera moved in. "The force, though mighty, is not invincible. Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss." Now Mortati understood. This was the reason. Conclave had been violated, but this was the only way. It was a dramatic and desperate plea for help. The camerlegno was speaking to both his enemy and his friends now. He was entreating anyone, friend or foe, to see the light and stop this madness. Certainly someone listening would realize the insanity of this plot and come forward. The camerlegno knelt at the altar. "Pray with me." The College of Cardinals dropped to their knees to join him in prayer. Outside in St. Peter's Square and around the globe . . . a stunned world knelt with them.

[spetey]

Hey Harvey,

I still don't see any reason provided for why a world without a God is a meaningless world. You want to concentrate on information theory, but (as I argue below) you actually end up simply begging the question once more--that is, in the end you merely assert your position without argument.

I suspect information theory is another one of your attempts at a distraction through technical material.

Oh Spetey, still trying to make the universe simpler than it is? I can't help it that information theory and the like are useful concepts to understand the world at large. You seem to want to always blame me for using concepts that are found useful in other contexts in describing the world.

I think the universe is very complex, and of course I think information theory is useful for "understand[ing] the world at large". I don't think that the mere existence of this formal theory of channel capacity etc. from engineering shows that God exists. (I think such a connection is totally implausible on the face of it, but I also show exactly why below.)

We have to go back to Wiener information in order to understand what I'm talking about:

Wiener`s "information" presumes an observer with a meaning of his/her own outside the system who determines the goal of the system. The observer may be another machine but in the end (or perhaps beginning) there must be a human being somewhere with an intention or purpose. The observer`s meaning is thus interrelated with the system`s meaning. The signals of the system therefore have a relation to a human meaning, even if it can be very distant.

So, the universe has meaning only if there is some intent or goal for the universe that would satisfy as meaning to a conscious being.

Information theory is about channel capacity and such for communication. Of course this presupposes the existence of communication, which in turn presupposes the existence of communicators (beings capable of mental representation). So I suppose it's correct (at least in some sense) that the universe is only a conduit of "information" if there are beings that are capable of representing that information. But notice:

1. The converse does not hold--that is, it's not the same as saying that if there are beings capable of mental representation (such as we humans), there must be meaning to the universe. But this is the claim you need to conclude the universe has meaning from the fact that thinkers exist.
2. This is very different from saying that the conduit of information itself (in your imagined case, the universe) must have a goal. Of course fiber optic cables can convey information without themselves having a literal goal. The same could be the case for the universe--even if it contains information, that doesn't mean it has a goal.
3. It is not obvious that an atheist must claim the universe doesn't have a purpose. If you believe something like the evolutionary theory of universes (that the stable ones "survive" and propagate in black holes) then the universe may have "designed" functions just as biological creatures do--but, as in the case of ordinary biological evolution, without an intelligent designer. Thus Quentin Smith for example might hold that the universe has a purpose / design but still be an atheist because he believes there is no supernatural deity guiding this evolution.
4. At any rate nowhere in your claim do you rely on actual information theory--instead you are interested in the background presupposition of "information", that there are beings to be informed. (Notice, for example, you do not rely on any of the formulas or theorems specific to the theory in order to make your point.) So it's not as though information theory itself is at all relevant here. Of course information itself is, to the extent it is relevant to questions of meaning. But on this point you have made no progress on the key question: why think that just because there are thinkers, that means there must be a God? And more relevantly to this thread: why must there be a God for this meaning?

Your remaining comments, I think, are all dependent on your claim above, which I take myself to have refuted, so I don't need to respond to your further points individually.


spetey

[harvey1]

I think the universe is very complex, and of course I think information theory is useful for "understand[ing] the world at large". I don't think that the mere existence of this formal theory of channel capacity etc. from engineering shows that God exists. (I think such a connection is totally implausible on the face of it, but I also show exactly why below.)... Information theory is about channel capacity and such for communication. Of course this presupposes the existence of communication, which in turn presupposes the existence of communicators (beings capable of mental representation).

I'm specifically talking about semantic information theory...

it's not the same as saying that if there are beings capable of mental representation (such as we humans), there must be meaning to the universe. But this is the claim you need to conclude the universe has meaning from the fact that thinkers exist.

No. My stance here is that atheism is a meaningless view. That is, the universe is ultimately meaningless. Hence, it seems that all I have to do is establish that the universe is ultimately meaningless if atheism is correct. From your comment you seem to agree, so why are you disagreeing with me that atheism is a meaningless view of the world?

This is very different from saying that the conduit of information itself (in your imagined case, the universe) must have a goal. Of course fiber optic cables can convey information without themselves having a literal goal. The same could be the case for the universe--even if it contains information, that doesn't mean it has a goal.

Those who have studied semantic information theory seem to be in wide-spread agreement that "meaning" that is carried by the signal refers to meaning that a conscious intelligent agent would comprehend. That is, there is some intent in the message such that the message has something to communicate. The message is such that it is not just humans reading their own interpretation into the message. There is in principle a message that can be understood if we have the correct interpretation.

It is not obvious that an atheist must claim the universe doesn't have a purpose. If you believe something like the evolutionary theory of universes (that the stable ones "survive" and propagate in black holes) then the universe may have "designed" functions just as biological creatures do--but, as in the case of ordinary biological evolution, without an intelligent designer. Thus Quentin Smith for example might hold that the universe has a purpose / design but still be an atheist because he believes there is no supernatural deity guiding this evolution.

But, in that case the universe has no meaning. It is a brute fact that is incomprehensible to a human mind. For example, if we study an asteroid moving about in space, there is an algorithm that can be gleaned from the observations, but there is no inherent meaning in this data. I repeat, it is not information that actually exists.

Now, we might be able to use that data collected from the asteroid orbit, and in that sense we make it into information. But, it is not the asteroid orbit in itself that possesses information, it is the interpretation or theory that is made as a result of this observation that becomes the information. This information can be published in journals, etc..

At any rate nowhere in your claim do you rely on actual information theory--instead you are interested in the background presupposition of "information", that there are beings to be informed.

Semantic information theory involves a very intricate discussion of what are signals, meaning, signs, symbols, information, knowledge, etc.. My point is that meaning within semantic information theory is mainly framed as human meaning and not as non-intentional meaning of physical observations, etc..

(Notice, for example, you do not rely on any of the formulas or theorems specific to the theory in order to make your point.) So it's not as though information theory itself is at all relevant here.

The study of semantic information theory does not lend itself to such formulas since meaning is a human concept that is not well-defined (it has biological, semantic, evolutionary, etc. connotations). However, as I said, I believe one of the most universal basis of meaning within information theory is the concept of it being based on the intent of the sender.

Of course information itself is, to the extent it is relevant to questions of meaning. But on this point you have made no progress on the key question: why think that just because there are thinkers, that means there must be a God?

I am stating that an atheist believes in a meaningless world. You seem to agree. What more is there to say?

And more relevantly to this thread: why must there be a God for this meaning?

Well, if there must exist meaning to the world, then there must be intent to the universe. If there is intent then there is a Mind behind that intent, which is in contradiction to atheism.

[spetey]

Hullo again!

I'm specifically talking about semantic information theory...

Oh, "semantic" information theory--you mean like Dretske, or Fodor? That's not what their theories are normally called, but I'm happy to discuss that attempt to naturalize intentionality if you like.

Until now, you were talking about measures of information, its relation to informational entropy and randomness, and such. These are topics squarely in standard information theory, and that's what led me to believe you were referring to the theory of channel capacity and the like.

it's not the same as saying that if there are beings capable of mental representation (such as we humans), there must be meaning to the universe. But this is the claim you need to conclude the universe has meaning from the fact that thinkers exist.

No. My stance here is that atheism is a meaningless view. That is, the universe is ultimately meaningless. Hence, it seems that all I have to do is establish that the universe is ultimately meaningless if atheism is correct. From your comment you seem to agree, so why are you disagreeing with me that atheism is a meaningless view of the world?

First: I know your position--I want to hear reasons for it!

Second: notice that my point does not concede that the there is no meaning to life. It merely states that you have failed to establish a conditional that you seem to want. This in itself says nothing about my position. Actually, as my first post to this thread makes clear, I think there is a great deal of meaning to life. I think there is no God and I think life is meaningful. I know you think that's inconsistent. I want to know why. It seems to me that helping other people, proving theorems, painting a painting--all these are deeply meaningful activities whether or not some deity is watching.

Those who have studied semantic information theory seem to be in wide-spread agreement that "meaning" that is carried by the signal refers to meaning that a conscious intelligent agent would comprehend.

Yes. Again, standard information theory (and "semantic" information theory, whatever you mean by that) presumes a notion of communication and information, of course (the former gives engineering details; the latter, if you mean informational semantics, tries to explain this commonsense notion). Do you see how that doesn't mean information theory ("semantic" or not) proves that only with God do we have meaning?

Compare the case of a formal theory of money supply. This theory presumes the existence of money. It does not prove that there is money, much less that money couldn't exist without God. Similarly, the theories of information you invoke don't prove there is information (though of course I think there is), and they certainly don't prove that there's no information without God!

It is not obvious that an atheist must claim the universe doesn't have a purpose. If you believe something like the evolutionary theory of universes (that the stable ones "survive" and propagate in black holes) then the universe may have "designed" functions just as biological creatures do--but, as in the case of ordinary biological evolution, without an intelligent designer. Thus Quentin Smith for example might hold that the universe has a purpose / design but still be an atheist because he believes there is no supernatural deity guiding this evolution.

But, in that case the universe has no meaning. It is a brute fact that is incomprehensible to a human mind.

There is a distinction we need to make here: it's one thing to say that the universe itself has meaning, and did before there was any sentient life (say). It's another to say that life such as we live it has meaning. My claim is that life has meaning. I'm not sure what it even means for the universe itself to have meaning. If you mean a "measure of information" as in information theory, then I guess the universe does carry information for us--maximal iff it was totally random which universe came about. If by "the universe having a meaning" you mean it has a purpose or intent (quite different from information theory), my point above was to show that the universe could have a purpose or intent without any God (though I am not committed to this one way or another; it's merely a consistent atheist position).

(Notice, for example, you do not rely on any of the formulas or theorems specific to the theory in order to make your point.) So it's not as though information theory itself is at all relevant here.

The study of semantic information theory does not lend itself to such formulas since meaning is a human concept that is not well-defined (it has biological, semantic, evolutionary, etc. connotations).

Here again you mean something other than "information theory" as standardly used. For real information theory does indeed have formulas, as you can see by clicking on that link.

I am stating that an atheist believes in a meaningless world. You seem to agree. What more is there to say?

I don't agree, as I explained above. I think our lives have a great deal of meaning. Maybe I would agree that the "universe itself" doesn't have meaning. I would have to have the phrase clarified first; but at any rate it's irrelevant to this topic.

And more relevantly to this thread: why must there be a God for this meaning?

Well, if there must exist meaning to the world, then there must be intent to the universe. If there is intent then there is a Mind behind that intent, which is in contradiction to atheism.

Good! Here you do not merely state your position, or obviously beg the question. This is the closest I've seen to an argument for your position. Unfortunately it has difficulties of the type I've explained above. To review:

• We are discussing the meaning of people's lives, not whether the universe itself has meaning (whatever that would mean!). My claim is that our human (for example) lives can be meaningful even if there is no God. For the purposes of this point it seems I can be agnostic about whether the "universe itself" has meaning.
• Even if we (for some reason) did need the notion of the universe itself having meaning, it is not at all obvious that this is the same thing as having an intent. Perhaps it's enough for the universe to have meaning if some parts (such as we humans) have meaning.
• Even if (for some reason) we were convinced that meaning to the universe means an intent for the entire universe, I have argued that the universe could have a purpose (like intent?) via the design provided by universe-scale natural selection, without any intelligent designer.
• Even if (for some reason) a genuine purpose / goal is not enough for "intent", you have yet to show that the existence of a God is required for this intent. Perhaps merely human intent is sufficient to make intent for the universe!

So though I'm delighted to see an argument at last, I hope you see why I think no one should be convinced by it.


spetey

[harvey1]

Oh, "semantic" information theory--you mean like Dretske, or Fodor? That's not what their theories are normally called, but I'm happy to discuss that attempt to naturalize intentionality if you like. Until now, you were talking about measures of information, its relation to informational entropy and randomness, and such. These are topics squarely in standard information theory, and that's what led me to believe you were referring to the theory of channel capacity and the like.

I'm specifically talking of semantic information theory since I'm focused on the issue of meaning. Statistical information theory does not get into a definition of meaning and knowledge as it is applied to IT. However, that doesn't mean that cybernetics, information systems, statistical and algorithmic information theory do not have something to contribute to these issues. The groups tend to work in isolation, but from what I've read there is great interest in trying to bridge the gaps that separate these groups. So, specifically I'm talking semantic IT, but if I see concepts better stated using a different branch of IT, I will mention it. For your relief, I'll try to be more specific when I make those crossovers.

notice that my point does not concede that the there is no meaning to life. It merely states that you have failed to establish a conditional that you seem to want. This in itself says nothing about my position.

Spetey, why should I have to establish that there is God in the universe when I already did that in our other thread that you've been too busy to post responses?

Actually, as my first post to this thread makes clear, I think there is a great deal of meaning to life. I think there is no God and I think life is meaningful.

What kind of meaning? Are you saying the universe is inherently meaningful, or are you saying that atheists are able to subjectively create their own meaning. For example, Karl Rove probably thinks it is meaningful to keep Democrats out of office anyway possible, do you think Karl Rove could be mistaken or do you think the whole issue of meaning in this context is so subjective that you can't even compare notes between what Hitler would have found meaningful and what the United Way charity organization finds meaningful?

I want to know why. It seems to me that helping other people, proving theorems, painting a painting--all these are deeply meaningful activities whether or not some deity is watching.

Subjectivism type of meaning? Relativism type of meaning? Objective type of meaning?

Yes. Again, standard information theory (and "semantic" information theory, whatever you mean by that) presumes a notion of communication and information, of course (the former gives engineering details; the latter, if you mean informational semantics, tries to explain this commonsense notion). Do you see how that doesn't mean information theory ("semantic" or not) proves that only with God do we have meaning? Compare the case of a formal theory of money supply. This theory presumes the existence of money. It does not prove that there is money, much less that money couldn't exist without God. Similarly, the theories of information you invoke don't prove there is information (though of course I think there is), and they certainly don't prove that there's no information without God!

Let me ask you this. If there were in principle no intent to any transmitted signal, would you consider there to be information in the universe? Under what circumstances do you think there is information? My view is that information only exists if there is a sender of some sort that intends for there to be a message. What is your view? Perhaps the message is misrouted or the radio waves disperse into space and are picked up by listening ears; that would all be considered information even if the audience was not the one that was intended.

I'm not sure what it even means for the universe itself to have meaning. If you mean a "measure of information" as in information theory, then I guess the universe does carry information for us--maximal iff it was totally random which universe came about.

So, if you think information does not need senders or receivers having some kind of intent, then please define to me what you consider to be information and, then, in that case, what do you mean by meaning?

If by "the universe having a meaning" you mean it has a purpose or intent (quite different from information theory)

I'm not suggesting that information theory is a theology. My argument is that meaning of a message implies a level of intent on the part of the sender. If there is no level of intent, then there is no meaning. (I realize you do not like me to clarify my position, but I think it is important that we can draw differences on where we stand on each question before we argue about this complex issue.)

my point above was to show that the universe could have a purpose or intent without any God (though I am not committed to this one way or another; it's merely a consistent atheist position).

How can the universe have a purpose or intent without a God? Intent is the basis of pantheism which believes in the existence of God. It's very dissatisfying that we still do not agree on the boundary condition of what God is and what God is not after we have debated on a regular basis for 8 months now. Do you make any allowance for pantheism in your belief system or do you just assume this is part of atheism?

The study of semantic information theory does not lend itself to such formulas since meaning is a human concept that is not well-defined (it has biological, semantic, evolutionary, etc. connotations).

Here again you mean something other than "information theory" as standardly used. For real information theory does indeed have formulas, as you can see by clicking on that link.

Yes, statistical information theory yields a number of theorems. However, this doesn't mean that semantic information theory is not "real." It was introduced by Bar-Hillel, Carnap, and Popper as a philosophical theory, however a number of researchers in IT haven't shun it for that reason.

I think our lives have a great deal of meaning. Maybe I would agree that the "universe itself" doesn't have meaning. I would have to have the phrase clarified first; but at any rate it's irrelevant to this topic.

How can the universe not have meaning and life have meaning? Where does meaning originate then? Is meaning a mind-independent? If not, then whose mind establishes what is meaningful?

Good! Here you do not merely state your position, or obviously beg the question. This is the closest I've seen to an argument for your position.

I'm surprised you would say that since I've been mentioning this argument throughout our debates.

My claim is that our human (for example) lives can be meaningful even if there is no God. For the purposes of this point it seems I can be agnostic about whether the "universe itself" has meaning.

But why do you think that human lives can have meaning if there wasn't inherent meaning to the world? Do you think a random pattern can actually have a pattern even though it is random? Is the Face on Mars an actual face? Is that rock formation any more meaningful than any other rock formation in the real sense? Should astrophysicists be spending precious hours trying to understand how the face formed? Should philosophers be spending hours trying to understand the significance of it? I think not. So, why consider the meaning as objective versus purely subjective?

Even if we (for some reason) did need the notion of the universe itself having meaning, it is not at all obvious that this is the same thing as having an intent. Perhaps it's enough for the universe to have meaning if some parts (such as we humans) have meaning.

If you don't have intent then what becomes of meaning? If meaning is entirely subjective, then why do you abhor an entirely subjective theory of truth but require an entirely subjective theory of meaning in the universe to be treated as being real?

Even if (for some reason) we were convinced that meaning to the universe means an intent for the entire universe, I have argued that the universe could have a purpose (like intent?) via the design provided by universe-scale natural selection, without any intelligent designer.

How do you define intent? I define intent is a having some goal in mind. How can a blind, natural-selective process have a goal? It is just acting in response to an event acting upon it. It has no more intent toward design than the natural selection process intended to bring humans onto the planet.

Even if (for some reason) a genuine purpose / goal is not enough for "intent", you have yet to show that the existence of a God is required for this intent. Perhaps merely human intent is sufficient to make intent for the universe!

For the universe to possess objective meaning it must contain a meaningful message that was intensionally encoded. This message must pre-date humans since if the universe did not have a message encoded in its structure, then prior to humans there was no meaning. If there was no meaning, then how does meaning arise for the universe if it originally had no meaning?

[QED]

I would just like to pick up one point of interest to me here:

I define intent is a having some goal in mind. How can a blind, natural-selective process have a goal? It is just acting in response to an event acting upon it. It has no more intent toward design than the natural selection process intended to bring humans onto the planet.

In once sense I'm surprised you ask this, but then again the answer may well be one that you are accustomed to ignoring: Self-selection. The selection criteria defines the goal.

[harvey1]

In once sense I'm surprised you ask this, but then again the answer may well be one that you are accustomed to ignoring: Self-selection. The selection criteria defines the goal.

Well, in a Smolin multiverse, what displays self-selection? Black holes don't choose their partner, they don't choose to fight or flee.

As for this being intent, I don't think you can say the natural selective process has intent or a goal. You'd have to put the intent way down to the species level and argue that the species as a whole is trying to survive, but I think that can be argued too (some philosophers argue that there really is no such division as a species). Dawkins might even say that it is genes that try to survive. So, again, what I'm asking Spetey about the Universe as a whole has nothing to gain from self-selection.

[QED]

As for this being intent, I don't think you can say the natural selective process has intent or a goal. You'd have to put the intent way down to the species level and argue that the species as a whole is trying to survive...

No, I'm sure you've gone the wrong way - rather than strip this all the way back down to the level of genes I'd argue that evolution by natural selection exhibits a large-scale goal of filling the universe with life. Despite the many fits and starts, this appears to be the inexorable outcome so I think it's fair to call a populated universe a goal of life. As a corollary of this I would say that natural selection demonstrates an intent to populate the universe with life.

[harvey1]

No, I'm sure you've gone the wrong way - rather than strip this all the way back down to the level of genes I'd argue that evolution by natural selection exhibits a large-scale goal of filling the universe with life.

That would be a bad argument, QED. Evolution does not have a goal anymore than a rock rolling down a hill has a goal to reach the bottom of the hill. If you think there exists some creative function to the universe that has this as a goal, then you would be a pantheist. (Which I suspect that you are a closet pantheist. Surely if this didn't involve a belief in a three letter word you would come out of the closet in an instant.)

Despite the many fits and starts, this appears to be the inexorable outcome so I think it's fair to call a populated universe a goal of life.

No. A goal, even the most primitive kind of goal requires for the system in question to be an IGUS (information gathering & utilizing system). Without this feature, I think the term goal or intent is entirely inappropriate. However, even with an IGUS this does not satisfy as meaning as it is used in semantic information theory. There is no doubt some meaning with any IGUS having intent. For example, paramecium have been studied by Chris Menant for the primitive intent that these creatures display when avoiding acid drops in water. The incident information of acid being detected by its sensing array is itself not meaningful information, however the recognition that acid is in the water is meaningful information and that this prevents at some primitive level is recognized as needing to be avoided (primitive intent). If the message of the universe were that "acid is in the water, this universe must avoid this," then conceivably this would be a meaningful universe since the information has a meaning that implies a primitive intent for the universe. However, I would have serious arguments against this notion since when talking about meaning we should think in terms of information that shows an intent that most humans would find meaningful. They would not find the paramecium's sense of meaning as humanly meaningful since it would not give a high enough level of intent. We'd have to call this primitive function "God" in the pantheistic sense, but it would still be a meaningless world since there's no human level of meaning. For that we'd have to turn to semiotics which is the study of human level of meaning. Obviously the atheist does not think the universe possesses this kind of meaning.