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

[QED]

It seems we have no reason to think the universe itself has any genuine goal or intent.

Well, I think this is just wrong. We have every reason to believe the universe has intent since we see the growth of information in the world. Instead of entropy taking hold we see the exact opposite situation: the increase of information.

If you'll forgive me for saying so, despite prior objections form both you and spetey, I think you'll find that there is but one source for this growth and that is evolution. Do me a favour and show me how it's otherwise then I'll gladly shut up.

[abnoxio]

I'm always amazed when I hear someone say that god or christianity, or church gives their life "meaning". Lets face it life has it's fair share of ridiculous stuff that has little or no meaning, but do we really need to add an obvious creation of man, (the bible, religion etc to make sense of it?

And while I'm on it, "meaning" in your life, or I should say healthy meaning, could be putting more effort and time into making each others lives (humans) better and more fullfilling. It's the only life that we KNOW is real. Lets let the all powerful gods, the omnipresent entities, the vengful, wrathful, creators take care of his own silly selves.
It's kind of like having children of your own and say to them, hey, I'd take care of your needs such as food, shelter, nurturing, but I've dedicated my life and soul to Charlie, my invisible child, and unfortunately Charlie requires me to forsake all for his glory. I mean c'mon, all we really have on this god-forsaken planet is each other.

Sorry about the preaching.

[spetey]

Hello again! First, the two rival hypotheses again:

Life is meaningful if and only if there are objectively good goals to achieve (that is, there are goals that are good whether or not anyone actually represents them as being good).

Life is meaningful if and only if there are objective goals by the Universe (or universe, or even God) in which life is either a goal or sub-goal to achieve, and which would require at least a normal intelligent human being to understand the significance of those goals or sub-goals.

And now, some discussion.

Let me try to indicate why I prefer mine. I'll start with the intuition that, for example, teaching people to read is a meaningful activity. My hypothesis accounts for this common intuition: teaching people to read seems to be an objectively good goal, and therefore can provide meaning. Your hypothesis does not account for this: teaching people to read is only meaningful if the universe has a kind of intent to bring us about. But this is mysterious. The meaning that comes from doing something good seems to be (roughly) intrinsic to the activity. It doesn't seem to matter whether anyone is watching you teach the person to read, for example.

This is a case of reductionism at play. I'm talking about atoms, and you are talking planets. If we deal with the same layer of complexity, then there are reasons to doubt your hypothesis. For example, your argument of meaning is entirely subjective, as I suppose you realize.

No, I certainly don't "realize" that. What's subjective about my account of meaning? It explicitly calls for objectively good goals. It seems not to be at all subjective. Please indicate why you think my hypothesis must be subjective, rather just stating it with the hope of rhetorical force.

What is the actual referent when you talk of "meaning"?

My hypothesis about meaning (in the context of "life having meaning") is as stated above. If you are changing the subject to intentionality, then I'm inclined toward the biosemantic view, but I don't see what that has to do with our discussion.

What happens if the brain cells die, does the meaning perish with the brain cells?

If you mean "meaning of life" meaning, then no, of course not, since goals are not brain cells or even human desires that might be made up of brain cells. I might have the objectively good goal to help people even if I don't believe I have this goal.

If you mean "meaning" like intentionality--the content of mental states--then yes, mental content such as beliefs and desires can disappear with the death of brain cells, as is amply demonstrated by brain damage cases. But again, why are we talking about intentionality now? Is it because you confuse it with "meaning of life" meaning?

What if a unforeseen black hole the size of Mars sneaks near our planet and sucks all the atoms of our planet into its gravitational arms, does that end whatever meaning was found there?

I would say yes on both versions of "meaning". If all sentient life disappeared, then there would be no meaning of life either. And if there are no sentient creatuers, there are no mental states with intentionality.

If so, then why speak in terms of meaning at all? Why not just refer to meaning as an epiphenomenon?

What? Because something would disappear if sucked down a black hole, you conclude that thing is a mere "epiphenomenon"? Do you feel the same way about tables? "Why talk about tables, since they would disappear if their atoms were sucked down a black hole? They must be mere epiphenomena!" Myself I think there are tables, with real causal powers, even though they would disappear if sucked down a black hole. I feel the same way about (both senses of) meaning.

I see your hypothesis along these lines. Meaning is a figure of speech to generalize concepts that you think are too complex or too awkward to describe technically...

Then you see my hypothesis along incorrect lines. Please explain why my hypothesis--stated again above--entails that there is not meaning except as a mere "figure of speech". It seems to say that there is meaning, and furthermore to hypothesize about what that meaning is.

Perhaps Best Buy will even sell the portable memory device that you can plug into your brain which will give the person that specific sense of meaning without having to do the activity. Has meaning been found (or bought) in such a world? I think not.

Notice that my hypothesis does not state that meaning is a brain state or a neurotransmitter or an algorithm or anything of the sort one could someday purchase at Best Buy. It hypothesizes that life has meaning if there are objectively good goals to pursue. Objectively good goals are not the kind of thing you could ever get at Best Buy. So your point does not seem like any kind of objection to my view. (It may be that in an attenuated sense, one could someday buy mental content at Best Buy--for example, chips that implant memory into our brain. But first, that has nothing to do with whether life has meaning, and second, that's not so crazy--indeed, it's not really different from the normal books we buy today, though the delivery method of the content is quite different.)

Now, my answer isn't quite so mysterious. If there is intent to the world ...

Let me interrupt you there and point out that already your hypothesis is mysterious. Why think the world itself has "intent"?!

... then whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic there is an overall carryover of this intent into the evolution of the universe.

Another mystery. Why think that? You agree that you and I have intent (~ mental content), but it doesn't "carry over" to the evolution of staplers. Evolution and mental content are not contagious or something!

Every event is meaningful to some extent since every event is causally related to the intentful event that started it all.

Here with your "since" you propose a new hypothesis: x is meaningful if it is causally related to a meaningful y. But first, of course this needs a "base clause" to avoid circularity--in what cases would something be meaningful independently of its causal relations to another meaningful thing? Secondly, it seems obviously false. The smoke from a fire I make to save someone from hypothermia does not itself have deep meaning just because it's causally related to a meaningful act.

If the world is random to start, then it is still random. However, if the world is intentful to start, then that intent is only snowballing increasing the amount of information in the world.

This doesn't follow. Compare: "if the universe has no life to start, then it still has no life". Meaning might emerge just as life did; indeed, my hypothesis makes sense of this fact.

It seems we have no reason to think the universe itself has any genuine goal or intent.

Well, I think this is just wrong. We have every reason to believe the universe has intent since we see the growth of information in the world.
Instead of entropy taking hold we see the exact opposite situation: the increase of information. On our planet we're doubling the amount of information in the world it seems every decade.

Yes, humans transfer more and more "information" all the time. But first, this does not mean that the universe started with information. Compare: "the human population is getting larger all the time. That means there must have been humans at the beginning of the universe!" And second, the increase of information in the world (in the sense you mean) does not seem to do with meaning to life and does not favor either of our hypotheses. Or do you think the meaning of life varies directly with the number of books and webpages there are to read? That there was no meaning to life in prehistoric times?

Of course, I take this to support my hypothesis. On my view, Mother Theresa's activities were meaningful because there was objective good for her to do. Your claim is that her actions were only meaningful if conditions totally outside Mother Theresa and her work are in place. But this is mysterious.

I think your hypothesis would have it that MT possessed a subjective meaning that is better classified as a series of brain states.

I can't work out at all why you would think that about my hypothesis. It clearly calls for an objective meaning that is independent of brain states. For what reason do you conclude that it's really about "subjective" meaning? And I'd still like to know: how do you account for the intuitoin that MT's activities were intrinsically meaningful?

This, I believe, is why science is so enriching to people. There is a meaningful joy coming from understanding the universe since it as if a message is being decoded that gives ones life more purpose.

Why does it have to be a message from someone / something to be enriching? Why can't there be meaningful joy in understanding the universe, period? I sure seem to get joy out of doing science, even though I don't think there's someone "sending me a message" when I learn things. (I can learn things sometimes just by looking at inanimate objects, as I think we agreed.) Again, on your hypothesis, science is only meaningful if there are mysterious external conditions in place. But that goes against the common intuition that gaining understanding is an intrinsically worthwhile activity. Only my hypothesis accounts for this intuition.

So I am still left wondering why we should prefer any of your various hypotheses to mine, and therefore still see no reason to think that life would be meaningless without a deity.


spetey

[Cathar1950]

I once read someplace that the word worship meant to do that which you were created to do. We were created according to the bible to be gardeners. So worship God plant a tree. Pray by planting flowers.
Praise by weeding. Of course a weed is just a flower no one wants.
What do you think folks? Is it plausible? I kind of like it.

[Sender]

I once read someplace that the word worship meant to do that which you were created to do. We were created according to the bible to be gardeners. So worship God plant a tree. Pray by planting flowers.
Praise by weeding. Of course a weed is just a flower no one wants.
What do you think folks? Is it plausible? I kind of like it.

Don't you mean plant a seed? lol

[Cathar1950]

No you can plant flowers.
Or you can start them from seed.
You can plant plants too.