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]

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's not a misapprehension. Atheism is a philosophy. Let me quote from the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief... Atheists have criticized the traditional arguments for belief and have tried to justify positive disbelief by arguing the properties ascribed to this being are incoherent, and that the amount and severity of evils in the world make it quite likely that there is no such all-powerful, perfectly good being control.

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.

I would agree that atheists don't have to believe in the big bang, evolution, etc., but it is the position on the existence of God that brings about a belief in the meaninglessness of the world since there is no meaning that comes from our existence other than that we are here. Our existence is ultimately the result of randomness.

[QED]

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.

In order to make this measurement of "worse off" we also have to take into account the amount of harm currently done in the name of religion. I don't think it's at all obvious that society would be worse off under these conditions. I lost a very dear friend in Northern Island. He had no religious affiliation yet lost his life serving his country in it's attempt to maintain order amongst Catholic and Protestant factions. This constantly reminds me of how much violence emerges throughout the world from similar divisions.

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.

Do you really think society would run amok in the absence of religion? It has always been an option to act inhumanely even while professing to be of a religious turn of mind. From what I see of the world most of the worst excesses of inhumanity flourish in those lands most subservient to strict religious doctrine. I realise that this view does not reflect the majority of peaceful worshippers going about their daily business in many Western societies, but it does pose a serious threat to world stability from elsewhere.

I don't like trading on these types of stereotypes and fears, but your visions of a Godless world simply don't strike me as portraying anything near as bad as what we have now.

[perplexed101]

Its undeniable not to notice, after the fact, just how many specific conditions that there are and all the observable conditions working simultaneously and interwoven into the very fabic of this existence. This type of observable references from which to draw upon are another example as towards a lack of randomness. Perhaps there are more principles involved towards an obstruction of an obstinate mind than a willing one. In this portrayal i believe it all leads towards handiwork and a mechanism for fulfillment as well.

here is the link for the site take note of all who were involved
and Dr. Dennis Swift's report:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

towards the top of the website is the icon to watch the documentary.

what's done is done and how you react to it is up to you.

[Dilettante]

perplexed101 wrote:

perhaps he is looking at it from chronological analysis based upon random happenstance.
i.e.: beliefless=helpless

although you could claim belief and apply that to yourself there is no basis for necessity thus a lack of a prime directive.

Sorry, you've lost me. Could you repeat that in simple language, please?

[Dilettante]

harvey1 wrote:

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.

I was under the impression that, for a course of action to qualify as moral or immoral, it had to be chosen freely. People do not form their own sense of morality any which way they want (unless they are sociopaths or moral imbeciles) because morality is essentially social. A castaway on a desert island has no use for morality. So, if people want their society to be successful, they will collectively adopt a moral code and teach it to their children. There really can be no such thing as "individual morality". Only a moral imbecile would believe that one person's moral standards are as good as any other's. Not even ethical relativists say such a thing. They believe instead that one society's moral standards are as good as any other society's moral standards. This is also false, of course.

[perplexed101]

Sorry, you've lost me. Could you repeat that in simple language, please?

i.e.: beliefless=helpless

here is the explanation:

If i were someone looking through the eyes of an ethical athiest, i would more than likely go through life with a logic of acceptance as decent formalities. an attachment to try and redefine what can be believed is predefined justifying with rational basic precepts of an illusion if inclined of what is..., which in doing so affects personal taste as being a highlight in life.

[Corvus]

]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.

I don't deny that this is a completely consistent atheist. What I do deny is that Christians would behave differently in any way. In which case, the Christian nihilist's speech would look like this:

The world is ultimately meaningful, which has been explained to us by a philosopher that it conveys information of some kind. We don't know what this philosopher means by that, but we the Straightforward Christians think it exists for a reason. But we are not obligated to act in accordance with this reason. 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 theists should be good people, then listen to them and follow them if you want. There is only one moral authority, and the only reason that you must follow him is that he wields a big stick and bestows even bigger gifts. If we ignore him, then we do so at our own peril. There can be no such thing as ultimate morality because doing so presupposes an objective value, which is nonsensical. 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, so long as you can get away with it. That is the lesson from the universe. If you decide to act selfishly and don't fear the consequences, 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.

By the way, harvey, why did you italicise "want" so many times? It seems to me everyone does what they want unless they are compelled by other people to do otherwise. If I believed in god, that would still hold true. I bolded "at your own peril" because it wasn't emphasised as much as "want", and I consider it just as important, if not moreso.

[perplexed101]

The world is ultimately meaningful, which has been explained to us by a philosopher that it conveys information of some kind. We don't know what this philosopher means by that, but we the Straightforward Christians think it exists for a reason. But we are not obligated to act in accordance with this reason. 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 theists should be good people, then listen to them and follow them if you want. There is only one moral authority, and the only reason that you must follow him is that he wields a big stick and bestows even bigger gifts. If we ignore him, then we do so at our own peril. There can be no such thing as ultimate morality because doing so presupposes an objective value, which is nonsensical. 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, so long as you can get away with it. That is the lesson from the universe. If you decide to act selfishly and don't fear the consequences, 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.

??? that right there is a foreign concept to me, are you sure that is an accurate portrayal?

*note: very mundane and no hint of spirituality

[Corvus]

It wasn't so much as representation as it was a demonstration. Atheists and Christians are not obligated to do anything. They can do as they please. The only differences are the types of ramifications that follow. For the atheists, it's the ramifications created by the existence of other people. For Christians, it's not only the issues arising from the existence of other people, it's the issues that arise from the existence of god and what he wants you to do.

A Christian can say they do good things because they love god - a subjective emotional reason that the Christian does not need to feel or might not wish to feel. A Christian can say they do good things because it is expected from their existence as a created creature - but duties are ethical constructs, and ethical constructs themselves can't be proven, nor can one be considered irrational for simply ignoring them if we don't care about the ramifications. It's also rather silly to use an ethical construct to explain why one should act ethically. A Christian can say they do good things because that is the correct thing to do - but god defines what is correct and there's nothing necessarily wrong with doing incorrect things, since that just means one is doing things differently to god and there is nothing irrational about that. In my view, the only things that can force us to obey god are rewards and punishments, otherwise we don't need to have anything to do with Him. But then again, I imagine that if one cares nought for the punishments that await beyond the veil, they can still commit sins happily and go to hell to endure a very painful defiance of God's moral rules. But I guess such a martyr would mean very little to god.

[perplexed101]

It wasn't so much as representation as it was a demonstration. Atheists and Christians are not obligated to do anything. They can do as they please. The only differences are the types of ramifications that follow. For the atheists, it's the ramifications created by the existence of other people. For Christians, it's not only the issues arising from the existence of other people, it's the issues that arise from the existence of god and what he wants you to do.

God wants to view what i do as acts of faith for Him not as repetitive motions and to treat you in a manner that if you were down and out to give you a helping hand according to the principles of moderation, so basically what im stating is to care about you as much as i care about myself and being charitable.