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

[Curious]

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

Please rephrase this so that it can understand it and I will try to answer.Thanks.

[perplexed101]

Please rephrase this so that it can understand it and I will try to answer.Thanks.

im asking for evidence that would refute my assertion. If you do have evidence not based on conjecture then please post it and if not im going to get some sleep and come back tomorrow.

[Curious]

Please rephrase this so that it can understand it and I will try to answer.Thanks.

im asking for evidence that would refute my assertion. If you do have evidence not based on conjecture then please post it and if not im going to get some sleep and come back tomorrow.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Your assertion is based wholly on speculation and conjecture.

[harvey1]

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?

Of course, but let's get inside the mind of an atheist consistent with their beliefs:

The world is ultimately meaningless. To act consistent with the world is to act in a manner that nothing you do ultimately matters. If you want to be kind, then be kind. If you don't want to be kind, then be unkind at your own peril. Don't let anyone tell you what to do unless you want someone to tell you what to do. Don't listen to anyone you don't want to unless you want to listen to them. If someone makes a philosophical argument that atheists should be good people, then listen to them and follow them if you want. You don't have to take anyone as a moral authority. There is no moral authority. There are no ultimate morals in the world. The individual decides what is moral and what is not moral. So, live life how you want to live life. If you think you can get away with something that someone else considers evil (in their opinion of subjective evil), then that is their opinion. You can do whatever you want. That is the lesson from the universe. If you decide to act selfishly, don't worry, you are free to do whatever you want. It is your decision. You don't have to follow some philosopher's view of morality, or some humanist view. We make meaning what we want it to be. You can act totally based on what you consider your interests whenever, and however you suit to do so. Don't let anyone tell you different.

So, my view is that if a large section of society held this view which is consistent with an atheist outlook, then society would be worse off.

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.

I'm not suggesting atheism is sociopathic. I'm only saying that religion evolved for a reason. Once you remove religion from a society, and it has time to fully go extinct, then the everyday atheist can begin to form their own sense of morality. They very well may become more moral people, but they might also see the freedom that exists and decide that it really makes sense for them to act on that freedom however and whenever they see fit.

[perplexed101]

Please rephrase this so that it can understand it and I will try to answer.Thanks.

im asking for evidence that would refute my assertion. If you do have evidence not based on conjecture then please post it and if not im going to get some sleep and come back tomorrow.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Your assertion is based wholly on speculation and conjecture.

lol, i'd like to let you dig yourself alittle deeper. Technichally im correct in assertion although not by the given time span that is in theory. According to a excavation done with a society and dinosaurs apparently co-existing based upon frame of reference.

Here is an excerpt from part of the dig, like i said i'd like to let you dig yourself just alittle deeper.

The radiocarbon 14 method of dating was still in its infancy, but Hapgood acquired specimens for C14 testing.6 Gardner and Andrew Young (inventor of the Bell Helicopter) financed the testing

So if you please, be so willing to give me evidence from your library that would refute the statement made by me?

[Curious]

Please rephrase this so that it can understand it and I will try to answer.Thanks.

im asking for evidence that would refute my assertion. If you do have evidence not based on conjecture then please post it and if not im going to get some sleep and come back tomorrow.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Your assertion is based wholly on speculation and conjecture.

lol, i'd like to let you dig yourself alittle deeper. Technichally im correct in assertion although not by the given time span that is in theory. According to a excavation done with a society and dinosaurs apparently co-existing based upon frame of reference.

Here is an excerpt from part of the dig, like i said i'd like to let you dig yourself just alittle deeper.

The radiocarbon 14 method of dating was still in its infancy, but Hapgood acquired specimens for C14 testing.6 Gardner and Andrew Young (inventor of the Bell Helicopter) financed the testing

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I have the strangest feeling that we are discussing two completely different subjects.

Below is the original reply you posted.

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.

The assertion you make here is about the particular philosophy of all preceding societies. Archaeology is very much an interpretive science and as such, the results are an interpretation of the findings. Much of what is found is formed into a particular theory on a best guess basis. It is this reason I say your assertion is based on speculation and conjecture. I am unsure why you made reference to carbon dating

[Curious]

Please rephrase this so that it can understand it and I will try to answer.Thanks.

im asking for evidence that would refute my assertion. If you do have evidence not based on conjecture then please post it and if not im going to get some sleep and come back tomorrow.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Your assertion is based wholly on speculation and conjecture.

lol, i'd like to let you dig yourself alittle deeper. Technichally im correct in assertion although not by the given time span that is in theory. According to a excavation done with a society and dinosaurs apparently co-existing based upon frame of reference.

Here is an excerpt from part of the dig, like i said i'd like to let you dig yourself just alittle deeper.

The radiocarbon 14 method of dating was still in its infancy, but Hapgood acquired specimens for C14 testing.6 Gardner and Andrew Young (inventor of the Bell Helicopter) financed the testing

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I have the strangest feeling that we are discussing two completely different subjects.

Below is the original reply you posted.

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.

The assertion you make here is about the particular philosophy of all preceding societies. Archaeology is very much an interpretive science and as such, the results are an interpretation of the findings. Much of what is found is formed into a particular theory on a best guess basis. It is this reason I say your assertion is based on speculation and conjecture. I am unsure why you made reference to carbon dating

[perplexed101]

The assertion you make here is about the particular philosophy of all preceding societies. Archaeology is very much an interpretive science and as such, the results are an interpretation of the findings. Much of what is found is formed into a particular theory on a best guess basis. It is this reason I say your assertion is based on speculation and conjecture. I am unsure why you made reference to carbon dating

We will come to the relavancy of carbon dating in due time with results of those tests. I do not expect you to logically piece together from the tiny portion that i presented. In terms of interpretation there will be no mistake as a correct interpretaton as universally accepted by the interpretations of today.

the parameters were stated did you not understand the statement? The basic sense of influence plays a big key when exerting reason and this is evident almost consistently throughout history (giving a margin of error for the benefit of the doubt), therefore my statement stands. Although the basic premonition has oftentimes been thought of as reason coming first for we give ourselves here on earth that much due honor.

[Curious]

... but let's get inside the mind of an atheist consistent with their beliefs:
...So, my view is that if a large section of society held this view which is consistent with an atheist outlook, then society would be worse off.

You are under the misapprehension that atheism is, in some way, embracing a particular philosophical viewpoint rather than just being a rejection of a belief. It is not inconsistent for atheists to have widely differing viewpoints from one another. The only thing that qualifies someone as an atheist is the rejection of the belief in God or gods. It does not mean they have to believe in evolution or the big bang or any other thing.

[perplexed101]

You are under the misapprehension that atheism is, in some way, embracing a particular philosophical viewpoint rather than just being a rejection of a belief. It is not inconsistent for atheists to have widely differing viewpoints from one another. The only thing that qualifies someone as an atheist is the rejection of the belief in God or gods. It does not mean they have to believe in evolution or the big bang or any other thing.

You forget what sparked the statement in the first place for a community's integrity is held together by influence and if the survivability were such that each person stating 'no' to an existing belief for influence was commonplace then the factor of influence compounding separate but equal frames of thought, one no and the other yea generating influence would naturally generate conflict and applying this pattern generates death and incohesion. In the following example i will show how influence that is greater than reasoning can be applied from surroundings.

Are you familiar with the old african saying which goes: "it takes a village to raise a child"? (this isnt exactly the specific example i want to show but an overall feel) Do you believe that statement? yes or no

answer the question and i'll give you the link for the excavation find for you to read or watch the video w/ audio presentation at your leisure.