Why do some people think life is meaningless for atheists (and agnostics)? Atheists don't believe the universe was created by an intelligence for a purpose, but why does that make their life meaningless? Why does it make life in general meaningless? I think most atheists believe their life has a purpose, but its a purpose of their own choosing. In general I think most atheists believe their is a general purpose to life and that is to make the world a better place - to leave it better than the way you found it. If an atheist believes this, what are atheists lacking that makes life meaningless?
If you believe god created the universe for a purpose, what is it? Is it so we can worship him? Does worshipping god make life worth living? I don't see why the presence of a god makes anyone think life has more worth. If you suddenly learned there was no god would that make you behave any differently? Would you feel life was worthless?
I feel that if there is a god and he created the universe and us so he can be worshipped, that makes life seem pretty darn meaningless. That's it? We're here so we can pray to him? If we arose because of a random event say, think how special that is. Think how lucky we are to even be here.
Is life is meaningless for atheists?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #2
I see no more reason for life to be meaningless to Atheist any more then any one else. I don't think that Atheist are Atheist because they are bad and want to reject God or some crap like that. I think they have ligitamite complaints of stemming from Theist sometimes meaningless ideas that have been "revealed" to them. Not all Theist but some. It would seem to me that an Atheist would see this is all there is and enjoy it and it would be all the meaning surly not meaningless. Life has it's own meaning and individuals find theirs usually with-in life. Unless one is neurotic or oppressed this would be true for anyone. I would think that life would be meaningful to Theist but this isn't always the case. Some seem to think that this life doesn't matter some even go so far as some Gnostics and equate flesh with life and abhor it.
It would seem that some Theist even reject this life and look towards afterlife. That makes this life meaningless. If this life is meaningless I don't know how you would find afterlife meaningful. The NG channel is doing a program on the afterlife right now.
It would seem that some Theist even reject this life and look towards afterlife. That makes this life meaningless. If this life is meaningless I don't know how you would find afterlife meaningful. The NG channel is doing a program on the afterlife right now.
Re: Is life is meaningless for atheists?
Post #3This often comes out in discussion with those of a theistic turn of mind. Surely being born into a universe that wasn't meant to be means nothing more than being born to parents that didn't intend to have a child? We don't go pointing to such people saying that their lives are meaningless. Quite honestly it just seems like a very crude play on words to me.ShieldAxe wrote: Atheists don't believe the universe was created by an intelligence for a purpose, but why does that make their life meaningless?
Now it might be argued that a wild goat wandering the hillside has no 'purpose' whereas the goat residing in a purpose-built goat farm does have a 'purpose' - but this is built on the assumption that the farm was built to harvest goat products. Cockroaches inhabiting the goat pens could not claim to have the same purpose. So even if we want to say a belief in a creator God gives purpose to our lives we have to be absolutely certain that the universe was created for us. This looks like a ridiculous assumption when we take into account the continual turnover of other species and the fact that we are far from being the the first form of life on the planet (nor would we be the last were we all to perish in a bird-flu pandemic!).
Post #4
I think much of the problem is the definition of terms. For a theist, life has a meaning that is unchangable: hard-core objective meaning that has little to do with what we may think about it. I think it's a very attractive concept -- to know that there is some (albeit unknown) purpose to the things we all go through. The human mind is genetically attracted to mysteries & paradoxes.
In terms of how theists view non-theists, there appears to be no reason why people can't make up their own rules & purposes -- many of which could be nefarious. In a universe which has no intrinsic meaning, how does the average person know the difference between right and wrong; how does he not give in to his inner desire to go on killing rampages?
Since the Christian definition of sin is something along the lines of "wherever God isn't", the association between those who do not "go with God" and either indiscriminate or unknowing badness is particularly strong.
In terms of how theists view non-theists, there appears to be no reason why people can't make up their own rules & purposes -- many of which could be nefarious. In a universe which has no intrinsic meaning, how does the average person know the difference between right and wrong; how does he not give in to his inner desire to go on killing rampages?
Since the Christian definition of sin is something along the lines of "wherever God isn't", the association between those who do not "go with God" and either indiscriminate or unknowing badness is particularly strong.
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #5
Worshiping God grants hope for the future (heaven; an afterlife) and a purposeful method by which to attain that gift. It is statistically proven that athiests are generally less happy than the religious, and this lack of hope no doubt contributes to that.Does worshipping god make life worth living? I don't see why the presence of a god makes anyone think life has more worth.
I have a much higher tolerance of personal dillemas as a Christian. My set of beliefs enables me to better work through my problems in the hopes of seeing a better day. It's no wonder the vast majority of suicide victims seem to have lacked a religious foundation in their lives.
I believe that religion has done wonders for humanity, and should never be negated as a prime uniting factor of civilized society. It is unfortunate that it is often given a bad reputation result of a small faction who wish to impose their convictions on others.
But whether the God figure really exists matters not in principle. A person's beliefs will make him happier regardless to whether or not they happen to correspond with reality.
Post #6
I think if you really think about this idea that 'god gives life purpose but we don't know what the purpose is', you come to realize that it is (for lack of a better word) meaningless. It has no effect on our lives. What does it matter if there is meanig if we don't know what it is. It's pointless to even talk about that because it can't guide or help your life in any real way. I guess if you look at it shallowly maybe you can get some fleeting comfort from it. Nothing sustantial though, i believe.ST88 wrote:I think much of the problem is the definition of terms. For a theist, life has a meaning that is unchangable: hard-core objective meaning that has little to do with what we may think about it. I think it's a very attractive concept -- to know that there is some (albeit unknown) purpose to the things we all go through. The human mind is genetically attracted to mysteries & paradoxes.
Meaning
Post #7This DNA, this cell division, this “life," does it have a purpose? Are we just a momentary blip on the screen of the universe? Are we an insignificant mold on the surface of one of billions of planets hurling through the darkness of space? As Nietzsche wrote:
"The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?"
This is a universal question. As Thomas Nagel states in his paper entitled The Absurd: "Most people feel on occasion that life is absurd, and some feel it vividly and continually." Nagel's solution is not really a solution, but simply to say that the Theist is in the same boat, so we have to just “live with it.” I am not sure that Nagel’s argument is valid. I am not sure that it is possible to mentally step outside of the sphere of God’s purpose and view it from the outside and ask, “Why does it matter?” I’m not sure we can zoom out that far, and if we can, I think there remains a difference between this view, and the view of an impersonal universe, as I will discuss later.
I am also not convinced that Nagel's explanation of the absurdity of life is correct or sufficient. Life is absurd when we believe ourselves to be gears in the great machine that is the universe, and yet we "feel" that we are not. We feel that we are free and significant and that we can make a difference in the universe. This is in accordance with the definition of absurd as "Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994)." Escape from this absurdity requires an irrational "leap of faith" into an irrational meaning (Schaeffer, 1968).
This leap is the only way to a more optimistic secular approach to the problem of meaning. In his article, “Evolution and the meaning of life,” William Grey acknowledges: “There is no reason, purpose, point, end, or externally employed goal at all which gives, or is needed to give, a reason for our existence (Grey 1987).”
In spite of this, Grey believes that “We can still raise the question of how one should live in order that one's life should be meaningful...It is up to us to provide purpose or point to our lives from within [biological] constraints.”
Grey recognizes that this explanation may be “unsatisfying,” but goes on to assert his belief that individually chosen “purposes” can be objective purposes for our lives. Even later, He states “This tiny speck of matter which we occupy, for a fleeting moment of time, is, from a grand cosmic point of view, so inconspicuous and insignificant. It is this process of stepping back, and locating the here and now in the vastness of time and space, which appears to reduce all to something quite trivial...If time annihilates all that we do, then what is the point?” His solution: “if nothing matters in a million years, then by the same token nothing that will matter in a million years matters now.”
The Apostle Paul also spoke of this idea: “If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (1 Corinthians 15:32)!”
Along these lines, the atheist or agnostic can argue thusly: “All that matters to me is that which I experience or have the potential to experience. This is my only meaningful reality.” In this way, the atheist purports to live as Paul suggests above, though perhaps with some refinements, allowing for “noble” pleasures like family, learning and altruistic behavior; anything that provides a sense of fulfillment.
(As an aside here, it would seem to me that if the atheist is concerned about his positive experiences, then the Theistic option might be the better one, since it promises fulfillment into eternity.)
The atheist realizes at this point, of course, that these feelings of fulfillment are simply chemical reactions resulting from random evolutionary tinkering with his psyche. The “love” he feels for his wife and children is an instinct that increased fitness for survival. But he ignores this idea in practice, allowing himself to simply experience the sense of fulfillment. I suppose it is like watching a movie without questioning the special effects. Really, it is “slightly above the level of a farce,” as Steven Weinberg wrote (Weinberg, 1977; quoted in Schroeder, 1997). I am not sure that scientific pursuits lift it above the level of a farce.
The atheist may reply that we have no alternative. His experience, as shown by science, follows the pattern of a closed system of cause and effect. Thus, it is possible that this system is self-sufficient. Further, it is likely that it is self-sufficient because that would be the simplest explanation, and in his experience, the simplest explanation is usually the best (Occam’s Razor). Further, if the system of cause and effect were “caused” by some outside influence, like God, it would make no difference, since it is a closed system, and I could predict my experiences just as well either way.
I cannot argue with his preference; that all that matters to him is his experience.
His second point—that his experience follows a closed-loop pattern, is an inference based on limited data. It can never be proven, of course, because the atheist will never have sufficient information to predict all of his experience. For this he would need an infinite number of data points. God could certainly overrule nature’s laws (God’s laws) temporarily without disrupting the apparent flow of cause and effect, since the atheist cannot predict all events. Much of the atheists experience will be explained by chance or randomness and probability. Chance raises issues about causality (see Quantum).
For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that his second point is true. His third point, that the cause-effect system could be self-sufficient, is granted.
His fourth point, that his is the simplest explanation, assumes that “self-sufficient” is indeed the simplest explanation. I have argued elsewhere that it is not. The view that God is the ultimate cause of all things is as simple as the materialistic view.
Even if the theistic view were not as simple as the materialistic, theism does have a practical advantage over the atheistic alternative: personality. In the theistic view, there is a personal nature to the universe. There is a person behind the universe, with whom we can interact and relate.
Lastly, the atheist's argument here is based on the assumption that Christianity is not true. If Christianity is true, then he cannot rely on his own intellect and perception colored as it is by his heart in rebellion towards God. The world cannot be correctly interpreted except from the assumption that God is in control of all things and man is not an autonomous, independent agent who can rightly judge truth apart from Him (Van Til, 1955).
The atheist is left with the illusion of "meaning," which he allows himself to enjoy against reason: "Eat, drink and be merry." But he suppresses what he knows to be true: that he was created by God for a purpose, namely, to know God and enjoy a personal relationship with Him. This truth he suppresses, and replaces with the assumption that he is the judge of truth and is the autonomous determiner of his purpose. But he will be forever frustrated in his endeavors, because he has forsaken the true purpose for his existence, and thus, though he may construct meaning for himself, he will not experience true meaning. As Pascal said "There is a God-shaped vacuum in every heart" that only God can fill.
We can, in fact, have a personal relationship with God.
(For links and references, see www.god4science.com/evolution.htm and www.god4science.com/references.htm)
"The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?"
This is a universal question. As Thomas Nagel states in his paper entitled The Absurd: "Most people feel on occasion that life is absurd, and some feel it vividly and continually." Nagel's solution is not really a solution, but simply to say that the Theist is in the same boat, so we have to just “live with it.” I am not sure that Nagel’s argument is valid. I am not sure that it is possible to mentally step outside of the sphere of God’s purpose and view it from the outside and ask, “Why does it matter?” I’m not sure we can zoom out that far, and if we can, I think there remains a difference between this view, and the view of an impersonal universe, as I will discuss later.
I am also not convinced that Nagel's explanation of the absurdity of life is correct or sufficient. Life is absurd when we believe ourselves to be gears in the great machine that is the universe, and yet we "feel" that we are not. We feel that we are free and significant and that we can make a difference in the universe. This is in accordance with the definition of absurd as "Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994)." Escape from this absurdity requires an irrational "leap of faith" into an irrational meaning (Schaeffer, 1968).
This leap is the only way to a more optimistic secular approach to the problem of meaning. In his article, “Evolution and the meaning of life,” William Grey acknowledges: “There is no reason, purpose, point, end, or externally employed goal at all which gives, or is needed to give, a reason for our existence (Grey 1987).”
In spite of this, Grey believes that “We can still raise the question of how one should live in order that one's life should be meaningful...It is up to us to provide purpose or point to our lives from within [biological] constraints.”
Grey recognizes that this explanation may be “unsatisfying,” but goes on to assert his belief that individually chosen “purposes” can be objective purposes for our lives. Even later, He states “This tiny speck of matter which we occupy, for a fleeting moment of time, is, from a grand cosmic point of view, so inconspicuous and insignificant. It is this process of stepping back, and locating the here and now in the vastness of time and space, which appears to reduce all to something quite trivial...If time annihilates all that we do, then what is the point?” His solution: “if nothing matters in a million years, then by the same token nothing that will matter in a million years matters now.”
The Apostle Paul also spoke of this idea: “If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (1 Corinthians 15:32)!”
Along these lines, the atheist or agnostic can argue thusly: “All that matters to me is that which I experience or have the potential to experience. This is my only meaningful reality.” In this way, the atheist purports to live as Paul suggests above, though perhaps with some refinements, allowing for “noble” pleasures like family, learning and altruistic behavior; anything that provides a sense of fulfillment.
(As an aside here, it would seem to me that if the atheist is concerned about his positive experiences, then the Theistic option might be the better one, since it promises fulfillment into eternity.)
The atheist realizes at this point, of course, that these feelings of fulfillment are simply chemical reactions resulting from random evolutionary tinkering with his psyche. The “love” he feels for his wife and children is an instinct that increased fitness for survival. But he ignores this idea in practice, allowing himself to simply experience the sense of fulfillment. I suppose it is like watching a movie without questioning the special effects. Really, it is “slightly above the level of a farce,” as Steven Weinberg wrote (Weinberg, 1977; quoted in Schroeder, 1997). I am not sure that scientific pursuits lift it above the level of a farce.
The atheist may reply that we have no alternative. His experience, as shown by science, follows the pattern of a closed system of cause and effect. Thus, it is possible that this system is self-sufficient. Further, it is likely that it is self-sufficient because that would be the simplest explanation, and in his experience, the simplest explanation is usually the best (Occam’s Razor). Further, if the system of cause and effect were “caused” by some outside influence, like God, it would make no difference, since it is a closed system, and I could predict my experiences just as well either way.
I cannot argue with his preference; that all that matters to him is his experience.
His second point—that his experience follows a closed-loop pattern, is an inference based on limited data. It can never be proven, of course, because the atheist will never have sufficient information to predict all of his experience. For this he would need an infinite number of data points. God could certainly overrule nature’s laws (God’s laws) temporarily without disrupting the apparent flow of cause and effect, since the atheist cannot predict all events. Much of the atheists experience will be explained by chance or randomness and probability. Chance raises issues about causality (see Quantum).
For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume that his second point is true. His third point, that the cause-effect system could be self-sufficient, is granted.
His fourth point, that his is the simplest explanation, assumes that “self-sufficient” is indeed the simplest explanation. I have argued elsewhere that it is not. The view that God is the ultimate cause of all things is as simple as the materialistic view.
Even if the theistic view were not as simple as the materialistic, theism does have a practical advantage over the atheistic alternative: personality. In the theistic view, there is a personal nature to the universe. There is a person behind the universe, with whom we can interact and relate.
Lastly, the atheist's argument here is based on the assumption that Christianity is not true. If Christianity is true, then he cannot rely on his own intellect and perception colored as it is by his heart in rebellion towards God. The world cannot be correctly interpreted except from the assumption that God is in control of all things and man is not an autonomous, independent agent who can rightly judge truth apart from Him (Van Til, 1955).
The atheist is left with the illusion of "meaning," which he allows himself to enjoy against reason: "Eat, drink and be merry." But he suppresses what he knows to be true: that he was created by God for a purpose, namely, to know God and enjoy a personal relationship with Him. This truth he suppresses, and replaces with the assumption that he is the judge of truth and is the autonomous determiner of his purpose. But he will be forever frustrated in his endeavors, because he has forsaken the true purpose for his existence, and thus, though he may construct meaning for himself, he will not experience true meaning. As Pascal said "There is a God-shaped vacuum in every heart" that only God can fill.
We can, in fact, have a personal relationship with God.
(For links and references, see www.god4science.com/evolution.htm and www.god4science.com/references.htm)
Post #10
This may be why the "parenting" metaphor is so powerful. As a child, you are given rules by your parents, the reasons for which could be entirely hidden -- for whatever reason. The rules are there for your protection, but let's say you don't see it that way. Don't take cookies from the jar, etc. There are a number of things that could happen if you do take the cookies, but as a child you don't have the capability to see the cause and effect relationship to not only taking the cookies, but also the process of taking the cookies. Now apply this unknowability and the relationship between parent and child exponentially to the relationship between God and Man. In most cases, we have the free will to take the cookies -- otherwise we would not have been warned not to -- even though there will be consequences for having done so. The consequences, of course, is where the metaphor breaks down. But you can see the attractiveness toward seeing a giant father figure who does things to us for our own good.ShieldAxe wrote:I think if you really think about this idea that 'god gives life purpose but we don't know what the purpose is', you come to realize that it is (for lack of a better word) meaningless. It has no effect on our lives. What does it matter if there is meanig if we don't know what it is. It's pointless to even talk about that because it can't guide or help your life in any real way. I guess if you look at it shallowly maybe you can get some fleeting comfort from it. Nothing sustantial though, i believe.
