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

[harvey1]

An atheist is just as human as a theist, also lives in a society with moral rules, and is perfectly capable of having ethical principles as well.

Agreed.

It makes perfect sense to help an old lady across the street for an atheist (or at least to not push her) because that's socially helpful behavior. Nobody that I know wants to live in a society without rules or guidelines.

No they don't, but if the universe is meaningless, then one doesn't have to feel compelled to play by any "rules." Look at this way, if you're playing a board game and you find out that there are no rules to the game other than what you decide to make up, then why not make up your own rules that benefit you directly? That doesn't mean that you should favor mayhem, but most of the rules of society are somebody else's idea. An atheist, to be consistent, should throw away that book and just make them up as they go. Of course they can think of the consequences if everyone did it, but if you believe that not everyone will sink to mayhem, then you can eliminate that concern of following your own rules that benefit you directly.

If atheists "consistently" adopted an "anything goes" entality, they would destabilize the very social fabric that sustains them.

That's a grand way of thinking of life, but an individual atheist doesn't have to worry about destabilizing the neighborhood block much less society. Perhaps they should think this way if a riot is brewing, so they may not want to destabilize the situation for fear of their own well-being. But, if no such concerns are present, and there's no fear of consequences, then nothing prevents the atheist from benefiting themselves at the consequence of someone else. The world is meaningless anyway. An atheist can think that they are actually being consistent with the way the world is afterall.

To persevere in being, they know they have to contribute to the success of their society. It makes sense for atheists to be virtuous in this life. Whatever happens in the next life, if there is one, is another matter. Even without "eternal meaningfulness", there's meaning in the here-and-now.

Says you. But, if the world is meaningless, then it really doesn't matter--really. Your primary concern is to self-actualize your life in whatever way that you feel self-actualization happens. For some, such as yourself, you might find the meaninglessness of life is made at least temporarily meaningful by pretending it is meaningful. This, for many atheists, will hopefully mean they live high moral standards. Which is fortunate for those atheists who don't want to go through the trouble since the chances of their actions destabilizing society is less remote. That gives them more opportunity to get away with whatever it is they are confident they can get away with. So, I suppose, such an atheist would find "morality" to be a nice opiate to keep others in line while they need not bother with such inconveniences.

Of course, I think like you that moral principles are important for society and that they are good for the individual. However, I think the people who reject such standards will surely be judged for their behavior, and when the time comes, they'll regret it. While people who do live according to high moral standards will find that judgement to be a heck a lot easier.

[Curious]

...an individual atheist doesn't have to worry about destabilizing the neighborhood block much less society. Perhaps they should think this way if a riot is brewing, so they may not want to destabilize the situation for fear of their own well-being. But, if no such concerns are present, and there's no fear of consequences, then nothing prevents the atheist from benefiting themselves at the consequence of someone else.

I'm in danger here of giving you a persecution complex but I saw the forum and thought it would be interesting so please don't think I'm stalking you Harvey.
I really don't know how you make this particular assessment of atheistic morality. Do you not believe that an atheist can feel sympathetic to the plight of another or have a degree of empathy? Many atheists do charitable work and perform unrequited acts of kindness. You talk about having no fear of the consequences, but the consequences of a particular action or inaction might be the suffering of another, which the atheist may wish to avoid. I would think that the majority of people who are kind or lawful are naturally inclined to act in this way rather than simply bowing to either religious or social pressure. To say such is suggesting that an atheist is nothing more than a sociopath.

[perplexed101]

I'm in danger here of giving you a persecution complex but I saw the forum and thought it would be interesting so please don't think I'm stalking you Harvey.
I really don't know how you make this particular assessment of atheistic morality. Do you not believe that an atheist can feel sympathetic to the plight of another or have a degree of empathy? Many atheists do charitable work and perform unrequited acts of kindness. You talk about having no fear of the consequences, but the consequences of a particular action or inaction might be the suffering of another, which the atheist may wish to avoid. I would think that the majority of people who are kind or lawful are naturally inclined to act in this way rather than simply bowing to either religious or social pressure. To say such is suggesting that an atheist is nothing more than a sociopath.

The objective isnt to grasp what is inherent but rather exemplify based upon the two contrasting perspectives. i see a vicious cycle forming since there is a logic towards pointing towards the possible based upon already inherent properties but that is not the objective for that only tries to merge two different schools of thought. Either take the side of randomness and see what can be extrapolated without merging with the other school of thought or concede.

[Corvus]

Hello, spetey, thanks for stepping in. I'm not very good at this philosophy game and your responses to harvey1's posts are a great deal of help in understanding just what exactly is going on.

No, I do not equate meaning with purpose. Meaning is better equated with information.

This is equivocation.

Just so, and to me at least, it still doesn't make much sense. Information is knowledge. It is processed data or interpreted facts, as my IT courses drilled into me, and because of that, it needs someone to do the processing or interpreting in order to achieve some useful purpose.

You seem to be saying matter expresses information under a theistic universe. If so, what does it express; that it was created by a god? That it possesses a reason for existing that is unknown anyway, and therefore irrelevant as to how people live their life?

It might be that your suggestion of meaning being "information conveyed" is a fancy way of saying the universe is predicated on reasons, and the reason you have defined the theory so elaborately is to claim that the reason is inherent to the object. In which case, my previous posts stating that a reason for existence is something external to an object still hold.

When you accuse atheism of not having any meaning, you intend the sense of worthwhile significance, or (a good approximation suggested by Corvus and others) purpose. But this is what we would like to hear more about. Why is life insignificant without a God?

Life is insignificant without a God because of reduction.

Thankfully insignificance is a subjective judgement that does not matter either way.

It makes perfect sense to help an old lady across the street for an atheist (or at least to not push her) because that's socially helpful behavior. Nobody that I know wants to live in a society without rules or guidelines.

No they don't, but if the universe is meaningless, then one doesn't have to feel compelled to play by any "rules."

I don't see why in a meaningful universe anyone would be compelled to follow rules either.

That doesn't mean that you should favor mayhem, but most of the rules of society are somebody else's idea. An atheist, to be consistent, should throw away that book and just make them up as they go. Of course they can think of the consequences if everyone did it, but if you believe that not everyone will sink to mayhem, then you can eliminate that concern of following your own rules that benefit you directly.

Just a short note; it's very difficult living a life dedicated solely to your own pleasure if you start abusing everyone around you.

[Curious]

The objective isnt to grasp what is inherent but rather exemplify based upon the two contrasting perspectives. i see a vicious cycle forming since there is a logic towards pointing towards the possible based upon already inherent properties but that is not the objective for that only tries to merge two different schools of thought. Either take the side of randomness and see what can be extrapolated without merging with the other school of thought or concede.

To try to argue the meaningless of life for the atheists under the false assumption that by not believing in God means you believe x,y and z is ridiculous. One cannot, in an argument, reasonably expect to constrain the opposition by stating what point of view they must hold. Randomness is nothing to do with either belief in God or otherwise. The decision to not believe in a creator God is not in anyway indicative of the particular philosophy or viewpoint of the individual other than that. To extrapolate such a picture of atheists from such scanty fact is absurd. When the first person said to another "there is a God" and this person did not believe, did this change the viewpoint of the disbeliever in any way? Was it that this refusal to believe altered for all time the world view of all who failed to believe? Of course not. Such an argument is ridiculous.

[perplexed101]

When the first person said to another "there is a God" and this person did not believe, did this change the viewpoint of the disbeliever in any way? Was it that this refusal to believe altered for all time the world view of all who failed to believe? Of course not. Such an argument is ridiculous.

That should give you a clue as to the survivability of communities if the frequency of occurances were such that if what you state was the norm in terms of pre-historic era. Athiesm is actually not the norm according to analytical observation even towards primitive tribes and communities. Aside from what is linguistically equivalent, there has never been a society without a belief in an influence greater than reasoning and just stating... well he could have bumped his head and state that as evidence is no evidence at all.

[Nyril]

Athiesm is actually not the norm according to analytical observation even towards primitive tribes and communities. Aside from what is linguistically equivalent, there has never been a society without a belief in an influence greater than reasoning and just stating... well he could have bumped his head and state that as evidence is no evidence at all.

Using less technologically advanced peoples as the basis for an argument for a god is ironic at best. To the people in Central America, the Spanish were gods. Lightning was the product of a god. Sickness was the invention of demons. The world was flat. Mentally challenged people were possessed by demons. It was common knowledge that dragons roamed the land, as did Unicorns and all other sorts of fanciful creatures. Past generations knew it was impossible to travel faster then the speed of sound, they knew that maggots were the product of rotting meat, and not flies. The sun, that big glowy thing in the sky, it was brought across every day by a chariot. Spiders were the result of a mortal weaver challenging a goddess to a weaving contest.

To me, the evidence that most every primitive society believed in the supernatural is evidence against a god, not for one.

[perplexed101]

Athiesm is actually not the norm according to analytical observation even towards primitive tribes and communities. Aside from what is linguistically equivalent, there has never been a society without a belief in an influence greater than reasoning and just stating... well he could have bumped his head and state that as evidence is no evidence at all.

Using less technologically advanced peoples as the basis for an argument for a god is ironic at best. To the people in Central America, the Spanish were gods. Lightning was the product of a god. Sickness was the invention of demons. The world was flat. Mentally challenged people were possessed by demons. It was common knowledge that dragons roamed the land, as did Unicorns and all other sorts of fanciful creatures. Past generations knew it was impossible to travel faster then the speed of sound, they knew that maggots were the product of rotting meat, and not flies. The sun, that big glowy thing in the sky, it was brought across every day by a chariot. Spiders were the result of a mortal weaver challenging a goddess to a weaving contest.

To me, the evidence that most every primitive society believed in the supernatural is evidence against a god, not for one.

im still waiting for evidence to refute what is stated and your opinion dont count.

[Curious]

That should give you a clue as to the survivability of communities if the frequency of occurances were such that if what you state was the norm in terms of pre-historic era. Athiesm is actually not the norm according to analytical observation even towards primitive tribes and communities. Aside from what is linguistically equivalent, there has never been a society without a belief in an influence greater than reasoning and just stating... well he could have bumped his head and state that as evidence is no evidence at all.

So how would the primitive man, without our capacity for reason conceptualize God? As far as we can tell, monotheism is a very new idea. If this ability was not always there (as it undoubtedly wasn't) then there must have been a point when this idea came about. Also, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the primitive concept of the gods bore the slightest resemblance to that held by most Christians and the evidence supporting pre historic god worship has been interpretive at best .
And who gave the example of bumping his head and used it as evidence?

[perplexed101]

are you using speculation as a means for empirical evidence to refute?