text:
Jennifer Fulwiler is a writer and speaker who converted to Catholicism after a life of atheism. She's a contributor to the books The Church and New Media and Atheist to Catholic: 11 Stories of Conversion, and is writing a book based on her personal blog, ConversionDiary.com. She and her husband live in Austin, TX with their five young children, and were featured in the nationally televised reality show Minor Revisions. You can follow her on Twitter at @conversiondiary.
Andrew Sullivan linked to my conversion story recently, and there's been some interesting discussion in response. It was this particular part of my essay that generated the most controversy, and I can't say I'm surprised:
If everything that we call heroism and glory, and all the significance of all great human achievements, can be reduced to some neurons firing in the human brain, then it's all destined to be extinguished at death. And considering that the entire span of homo sapiens' existence on earth wouldn't even amount to a blip on the radar screen of a 5-billion-year-old universe, it seemed silly to pretend like the 60-odd-year life of some random organism on one of trillions of planets was something special. (I was a blast at parties.) By simply living my life, I felt like I was living a lie. I acknowledged the truth that life was meaningless, and yet I kept acting as if my own life had meaning, as if all the hope and love and joy I'd experienced was something real, something more than a mirage produced by the chemicals in my brain.
Will Wilkinson disagreed with my methodology for deducing meaningfulness, saying that "the best reason to think 'life is meaningful' is because one's life seems meaningful. If you can't stop 'acting as if my own life had meaning,' it's probably because it does have meaning." Over at the New York Times, Ross Douthat responded to Wilkinson by saying that we need to look at that idea a little more closely. Douthat offered a thought experiment in which he described soldiers in the trenches who feel like the overall war is meaningless, yet find purpose in their bonds with one another. Ultimately, he concluded:
This is a very natural way to approach warfare…and it's a very natural way to approach everyday life as well. But the part of the point of religion and philosophy is address questions that lurk beneath these natural rhythms, instead of just taking our feelings of meaningfulness as the alpha and omega of human existence. In the context of the war, of course the battle feels meaningful. In the context of daily life as we experience it, of course our joys and sorrows feel intensely meaningful. But just as it surely makes a (if you will) meaningful difference why the war itself is being waged, it surely makes a rather large difference whether our joys and sorrows take place in, say, C.S. Lewis's Christian universe or Richard Dawkins's godless cosmos. Saying that "we know life is meaningful because it feels meaningful" is true for the first level of context, but non-responsive for the second.
Exactly. That's smart-person speak for the point I was fumbling around to make: All of the atheistic arguments I've heard in favor of the meaningfulness of human life assume that our experiences are valuable. "I volunteered at a soup kitchen this weekend, and that brought others happiness and gave me a sense of fulfillment," the thinking goes. "That gives my life meaning right here, right now, whether or not there's a soul or an afterlife." It sounds lovely. But I don't think it works.
Let's say we have the following equation, and I have the freedom to make X whatever I want it to be:
I could do something cool like make X = (21 + 2 + 10 + 28 + 22 + 14 + 7), adding up the days of the month for family and friends' birthdays so that their total is a number that represents the month and day my husband and I were married. Or I could carefully craft some other combination of numbers that was deeply significant to me. But the equation would still look like this:
(21 + 2 + 10 + 28 + 22 + 14 + 7) * 0 = _____
No matter how many or how few numbers I use, it would still yield the same result: Zero.
If consciousness is just a mirage produced by chemical reactions in our brains, and if the mirage permanently flickers out on the day those reactions cease, then do any of our conscious thoughts really matter? Sure, you can have an impact on others who will live on after you die, but one day they will disappear into thin air too. To my mind, all this talk of valuable life experiences adding up to something meaningful is like talking about how to make X add up to something meaningful in the above equation. In the end, it's all for naught.
This, of course, does not necessarily mean that the atheist materialist worldview is false. Whether or not life has any meaning if atheism is true is a separate question from whether or not it is true in the first place. My intent here is simply to point out that you can't have it both ways: Modern atheism denies that human consciousness is rooted in anything other than the chemicals in our brains, thus rejecting the idea that any of our experiences will last outside of time; yet it also tries to say that our consciousness and experiences are meaningful. I don't see how both of those assertions can be true.
Interestingly, this is a debate I've had with atheists when I was an atheist, and with Christians now that I'm a Christian. It's not only nonbelievers who argue that you can find meaning within the atheist worldview: I've talked to quite a few Christians who say that if there were no eternal life for the soul, they would still find life to be meaningful. Maybe there's some gene that allows you to sense meaning even if you believe that you're faced with complete annihilation? If so, I don't have it, because that mindset is not one I've ever understood. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: If all of our feelings and experiences take place in the ever-fleeting realm of time, they're already as good as gone.
Bill h. - if Hofstader says what you say he says, he is a lying POS and a sophomoric douche.
No. Any other answer is a neck bearded lie or the product of willful ignorance.
I would carefully assess / look into the question itself, the meaning of each word to arrive at the actual question and what is the real intent of that properly understood question (if at all). As said a renown philosopher, in gist, to arrive at the truth, get to the smallest details, so to speak.
Life has meaning for anyone of any belief. Life is what we choose it to be. It is up to each and every one of us to find the meaning in our lives ourselves, and yes, atheists can do this very well.
Ms. Fulwiler, you might consider reading Douglas R. Hofstadter's, "I Am a Strange Loop" to help with your quandary of "that you can't have it both ways: Modern atheism denies that human consciousness is rooted in anything other than the chemicals in our brains, thus rejecting the idea that any of our experiences will last outside of time; yet it also tries to say that our consciousness and experiences are meaningful. I don't see how both of those assertions can be true." He addresses how both assertions can be held at the same time.
David Carlon (2011-12-13@15:28), you should probably take Hitler off that list. Statements like "So glaube ich heute im Sinne des allmächtigen Schöpfers zu handeln: Indem ich mich des Juden erwehre, kämpfe ich für das Werk des Herrn" (Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator: by fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work) indicate he was in the theist camp. The choice of "Gott mit uns" as a motto is also suggestive.
Under canon law, having been baptized and confirmed, he was Catholic. Certainly, a very bad one, and even atypical; but a Catholic nonetheless.
SCWJR, the problem I have is where you take "moral law"; though it's not clear whether you're taking direct as an unjustified premise (save, perhaps, "by intuition"), or as an inference relying on some other implicit basis for which ordering to choose. Similarly, that human nature includes (for example) the tendency to avoid pain doesn't make doing something you "should" do over not doing so, unless you have a prior of some deontological or consequentialist ordering basis (IE: favoring survival over non-survival).
I'm aware that not all philosophers accept Hume's principle, particularly moral rationalists. However, his observation holds: where their arguments switch from is-statements to ought-statements, an implicit premise as to ordering relationship is invariably lurking.
That said, yes, I realize that trying to use abstract mathematics for persuasion is a bit of a long shot. Most people aren't that good with math.
"by David Carlon on Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 3:28 PM (EST):
Ya gotta love these intellectual and compassionate atheists… my all time faves for the 20th Century universal atheist doctors of compassion and reason Lady Gaga trophy goes to[....]"
## That is as reasonable and just as to judge Catholicism by the paedophilia scandals, the centuries of Catholic persecution of the Jews, the blood-libel, the Ustashe slaughter of the Serbs in WW2 Croatia, or the IRA would be. A far fairer approach is to judge a way of life, not by its vilest examples, but by its very best & highest. To judge a way of life by its worst representatives is grievously unjust, irritates those who can see the injustice with their way of life is being treated, creates or maintains bad feeling, supports ignorance, and prevents people from seeing God's grace at work among those who do not belong to their own group.
"If Atheism Is True, Does Life Still Have Meaning?"
## Well, of course it does. Why are religious people so unable to realise that one does not have to be a theist to find meaning in life ? This inability makes one despair - can they not understand that it is possible to have ideas that are not theistic, not Catholic, & and worth living by ? Why is to so hard to understand that not everyone needs Catholicism, Christ, Yahweh, or whatever god or gods one can think of ? (I ask that as a Catholic BTW.) Maybe the question disguises some other question - if so, what is it ? Epicurus thought of the gods as having no interest whatever in human affairs - and his philosophy lasted 600 years. The idea that theism is essential for human life depends upon the idea that belief in a god or gods is by its very nature inextricable from ethics - but such an idea would have meant nothing to the pre-Christian Romans; when they wanted guidance on how to live, they went to philosophy, not to religion. The union of theism & ethics is alien to Greek & Roman religion. Egyptian Wisdom texts say little about the gods; one could live a good life if one followed those texts, even if one were an atheist.
Ya gotta love these intellectual and compassionate atheists… my all time faves for the 20th Century universal atheist doctors of compassion and reason Lady Gaga trophy goes to:
Mao Zedong.
Pol Pot.
Kim Jong-il.
Nominees are being taken for the 21st century Honorary Christians in name only that are responsible for over 1 million humans murdered in the name of fighting scary terrorists that are jealous of our er, American Christian way of life:
Ronald Reagan.
George Bush.
Dick Cheney.
Donald Rumsfeld.
Honorary mention and back room death merchant dual-citizen American in name only candidates:
Paul Wolfowitz.
Richard Perle.
Douglas Feith.
Michael Ledeen.
Scooter Libby.
Charles Krauthammer.
Stephen Bryen.
David Frum.
Abb3@ I don't think you read my post very closely regarding God not determining what is good for a given nature, or else you wouldn't have selected the kind of rebuttal that you tried (cf. the chess analogy).
Again the idea is called moral rationalism.
So if we accept that human nature is a certain thing and that human nature is such that it in conjunction with the apriori moral law dictates what the human virtues are, whatever the origin of this nature, and whatever people's opinion of this origin is, the fact of what the human virtues are does not change. I mean really it seemed that you just employed the genetic fallacy to try to "disprove" my adoptive account. It doesn't matter a whit whether human nature came from randomly combining genes, God, or the state puffed marshmallow man to my account, and if the origin of human nature does matter it is impingent upon you to prove why because there are many other situations in which the origin of something doesn't change how we should react to it.
And in regards to your repeated mention if abstruse mathematical logic concepts as if you are clarifying anything by them: It is so comical.
And you do realize that a moral rationalist does not need to accept Hume's so called "law" regarding "is vs ought", anymore than people who can see need to prove that sight is possible to the blind.
(This isn't the reply that I thought might get hung up. It may too, of course.)
Coast Ranger (2011-12-12@17:29), you assert that "reason and experience" support your proposition. This by itself, however, is not an explicit set of propositions that indicate what inferences follow, and is effectively indistinguishable from assertion on faith alone. I was looking more to work my way back to your set of starting axioms. Presumably, the analogy you then supply is intended to be an example of the reason and experience. However, this requires the analogy gives a general principle, which if grounded in experience requires agreement to a basis of induction (ala Hume)—which is unlikely to be mutual.
Peeking past those problems, the analogy presupposes that there is no difference between the purpose intended by the creator (consequences favored by the creator, establishing the ordering relationship among design choices) and the creation's purpose. While that's one way to define an ordering relationship, that's not the only way. The analogy also presupposes that humans were "designed"—a point sufficiently tied to another of Aquinas' arguments that I'll leave until Upbeat Dad and I can finish the fourth.
Upbeat Dad (2011-12-12@17:10 PM), while this may be one to approach the idea of God, in so far as it is dependent on the validity of the ordering as linear, and in so far as non-linear poset orderings are possible, the proof does not cover all cases, and thus fails. (This appears to address @1745 also.) It's as if you tried a numerical proof, but only showed it for even numbers, but not odd.
Now, if you want to say that it depends on the validity of the first proof, then there aren't FIVE independent proofs—seemingly a cogent reduction of Aquinas, though not a complete elimination. At best, the first and fourth together are two parts of a single proof. If, however the first proof is self-sufficient, the fourth is merely redundant. It does not stand on its own, but results as a theorem from the other—in which case, it fails if the other does.
There's also the question of whether the supremum is an element of the set. The usual analogy I try (with little success) is having and eating cake. The choice set can be denoted {0,H,E}: neither having nor eating cake, having cake but not eating it, and eating it but not having it. One ? ordering relationship on three elements corresponds to the set of ordered pairs {(0,0), (H,H), (E,E), (H,0), (E,0)}. Under this ordering relationship, both H and E are greatest elements, although incomparable to each other. The "supremum", however, doesn't exist: there's no having your cake and eating it too. (Examples exist in linear orderings as well as posets.)
And then, we get to some further semantic disagreement. Linear and non-linear orderings are not states of "being". Rather, they are abstract relationships, potentially among abstract entities not requiring instantiated primaries. Saying "God ultimately transcends linear and the non-linear" translates to making God an element of the empty set—nonexistent. Presumably, that's not your thesis.
Upbeat Dad @(2011-12-12@16:56), as far as "2+2=4" goes, the framework I'm presently inclined to is the usual gold standard these days for mathematics: Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory axiom starts, then Von Neumann constructions of Peano arithmetic (using Boolean algebra for logical connection—technically, Robbins algebra, but there's no difference). Of course, the VonNeumann-Bernays-Gödel axioms are an equivalent alternative; and there are several others considered seasonally in and out vogue. Unless you're a mathematician, you probably aren't using those for how you conceptualize "2+2=4". However, even a Jesuit would be unlikely to find ZF any more offensive than Euclid; probably less. (Now, some of the later points I may get to….)
I expect the next reply part to hang up in moderation for a bit.
@ abb3w - On this business of showing the "necessity" of linear ordering lest the proof be flawed, I have my doubts in this case. Why is it "necessarily" a flaw? I don't think it is a flaw, any more than one must show the necessity of fire-is-hot as a maxim in order to argue that fire burns. It can be argued that fire burns, and indeed it does. If one fails to first show the necessity of fire-is-hot, is that which the fire burns any less burned? No.
abb3w asks "on what basis (if any) do you assert 'Whoever creates a nature automatically determines what is good for that nature'?"
I assert this on the basis of reason and experience.
If you design a car you determine what the car can do and how to best operate it. Its design determines how fast it can go, when it needs maintenance, what kinds of fuel to use, and generally how long it will last.
The design of the human digestive system determines what is good for that system (say, an apple) and not good for it (crab apples).
@ abb3w - Do you understand that the phrase "more or less" in his fourth argument refers to what mathematicians term an "ordering relation"? Do you understand that his "something exists" as a maximum relies on an implicit assumption that all ordering relationships are linear orderings? Do you understand that unless the necessity of a linear ordering rather than a poset can be shown (at least for the particular case), this constitutes a flaw in the proof?"
I don't think it's necessarily a flaw in the proof, but even if it were, Aquinas has already established a viable linear ordering in the first proof. That said, I don't think Aquinas was trying to imply that all ordering relationships are or must be linear, only that this particular ordering relationship is one way to approach the idea of God, who ultimately transcends the both linear and the non-linear, both of which are themselves states of "being." God, as the Thomistic argument goes, is not a state of being per se or any sort of being at all, but rather the ground of being itself which would ultimately encompass all ordering relationships whether linear and non-linear.
P.S. Thanks for raising the bar a little…Rover Serton was driving me nuts.
@ abb3w - "However, given agreement as to the starting axioms for the semantics, the idea underlying "2+2=4" relative to the usual axioms can be translated to the alternate framework."
And what is the alternate framework you are proposing translating to, beyond the obvious (i.e., that there is no "God" in the theist sense of that term)?
RC: you wrote:
Atheism is a religion, because as practiced by its core evangelists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and formerly Sagan) it has all the core elements and serves all the core functions which the things popularly recognized as "religions" have in common in the lives of their adherents:
1. Answers to the "What is, and where did it all come from?" question;
2. Answers to the "What is man, and what are his important features?" question;
3. Answers to the "How can we know what is true?" question;
4. Answers to the "What is good and evil, right and wrong?" question;
5. Answers to the "What is/are the big problem/problems, and how are they best solved?" question;
6. Common practices for reinforcing the religion's answers to the aforementioned questions in the believer;
7. Common practices for transmitting the religion's answers to the aforementioned questions to the minds of others and to the next generation.
YOU are the one who is labeling Dawkins, etc. as evangelists. You wouldn't recognize reasonable discourse if it hit you in the face.
Science, not atheism, uses an established method practiced by members of the scientific profession to TRY to answer questions that you propose. They can be wrong, and when there is evidence that they may be wrong, the evidence must be answered or their ideas are trashed.
Not all atheists "revere" Dawkins, etc. or science, as you insist. There are too many atheists who don't believe in global warming, for example.
The questions you listed are questions that every human wants to explore—it's what makes us human as opposed to other mammals. Atheists, however, DO NOT BELIEVE IN A SUPERNATURAL BEING THAT CONTROLS/INTERFERES/OR NEEDS TO BE APPEASED. That is all.
Upbeat Dad (2012-12-12@15:34), my point is that there's disagreement as to the semantic concept of "good", and the associated idea of "purpose". You define them based on your concept of God; atheists use an alternate basis. Absent some semantic-level agreement of mapping of word to concept (and in particular, the axiomatic bridge of is-to-ought defining the associated ordering relationships), most of the discussion is just going to be talking past one another. However, given agreement as to the starting axioms for the semantics, the idea underlying "2+2=4" relative to the usual axioms can be translated to the alternate framework.
Presuming the new framework is able to express such basic arithmetic, of course; some are too simple.
We also almost certainly don't agree on the means and basis of "testing those meanings against reality", giving more opportunities to talk past one another. (I'm also not sure whether you're keeping straight the definitions of "meaning" as "purpose" and as "mapping symbol to concept".)
As to Aquinas, let's start with just one of the arguments. Do you understand that the phrase "more or less" in his fourth argument refers to what mathematicians term an "ordering relation"? Do you understand that his "something exists" as a maximum relies on an implicit assumption that all ordering relationships are linear orderings? Do you understand that unless the necessity of a linear ordering rather than a poset can be shown (at least for the particular case), this constitutes a flaw in the proof?
Of course, there's also the possibility such response won't meet your measure of "cogent".
Upbeat Dad (2012-12-12@15:54)—this I'll respond to if we get to the other Aquinan arguments.
Coast Ranger, (2011-12-12@15:28), on what basis (if any) do you assert "Whoever creates a nature automatically determines what is good for that nature"?
@ abb3w - You know, it's good that you brought semantics into the matter, because that's really what this whole discussion is about. Atheists (and yes, even a great many ill-informed Catholics) are woefully confused about what the Church means when it says the word "God." All too often I hear angry, ranting, incoherent atheists throw words around like "sky-man" and "flying spaghetti monster," as though God was somehow a supreme being that is "out there" in the universe somewhere. Even Aquinas would have ripped that concept apart, and ultimately it's just not what the Church teaches who God is. Rather, we understand God not as "a being," which is to say, not just one more being among many, but rather the very foundation of being itself. That's the essence of Aquinas's arguments, and they have been consistently upheld by the Church down to the present day. Another way of saying this is that God is not anywhere in the universe, but that the universe is in God. Now admittedly, Catholic theology has a lot more to it than that, but until one takes that as a starting point, there is no hope of coming to terms with anything that comes after. If all atheists can do is refute the existence of "sky-man," then the argument is over. I agree, God is not in the sky. Was there anything else, or is that it?
@ abb3w - "provoking us to thought?" Hmm…. methinks you should read my response to Rover Serton above. If that's the best thought-provoking you atheists can do, then I'll stick with Aquinas.
You say, "semantic mapping of string to concept." Well, sure, if you change the semantics, you can refute anything, even that 2+2=4. That is, insofar "as you presently define your relationship" to 4. If by "provoking thought" you mean reflecting upon what ever the cat coughs up, well then I suppose you can construct any kind of meanings you want. Anybody can do that, what's hard is testing those meanings against reality. And I still have yet to hear any atheist give a cogent response to Aquinas on this forum or elsewhere. And please, don't send me on YouTube to The Amazing Atheist's channel…I just ate.
@ Scwjr
You write: "God can be free to create whatever nature God is free to create, but God does not determine what was good for that nature." I think you are wrong about that. Whoever creates a nature automatically determines what is good for that nature. If you create a horse, you create a grass-eating critter that loves to run. If you were a horse who decided to eat meat and live underground, things wouldn't go very well for you.
You also write: "So again, even if God does not exist, then it is still possible for life to have meaning because moral truths allow life to be meaningful . . .." Well, if we agree there is such a thing as human nature, one could say that it would be good to trying to conform yourself to the demands of that nature. For example, one could build a complete traditional picture of marriage solely based on human nature. But some people would say, I don't care what evolution has decided for me, I want to have the kind of sex I want, when I want it, with whom I want it. I think if human nature came about ultimately only through the random collision of subatomic particles, this "I don't care about no stinking human nature" would be justified. But if human nature is part of God's master plan (which could include an interplay of design, chance and necessity), a sensible person would conclude, if God made my nature this way, I'd be smart to conform myself to it.
@ Rover Serton - "Upbeat dad: Epic fail. If you rely on an 800 year old arguement without any better in the mean time, you lose. Sorry. CE 1200 does not well relate to CE 2000. You have much more invested in God than I do. I find him and St Nick ruffly eqivalent except for severity. St Nick only punishes for a year, Yahweh punishes for eternity."
Why do I "lose?" Where is it written that an argument or set of arguments lose their weight simply on the basis of when and where they were formulated? That's what's known in scientific circles as a Discovery Bias. That is, dismissing an argument based on where it comes from, instead of debating it on its relative merits or demerits. Yours is the "Epic fail" here, not mine. You patently did not address Aquinas's arguments, instead you tried to dismiss them by claiming them merely to be "old" hoping no one would notice that you really didn't engage. Smooth move, ex lax. You atheists really do think we're stupid don't you? You think we won't notice such shabby thinking. This isn't the high school debate team, dude…next time address the issue and maybe you'll get taken seriously.
I'm going to go make myself a sandwich now…and maybe watch a little Matt Dillahunty on YouTube. You know…just for laughs.
R.C. (2011-12-09@23:40), atheism per se does not answer your set #s 4 and 5. Both Randite Capitalism and Soviet Communism are atheist philosophies, but have radically different answers. Western "Secular humanist" atheism comes to yet another—but even your "core evangelists" differ significantly on those. Also, under Dale Cannon's approach (ISBN 0534253326), their atheism is all but entirely lacking in the Way of Sacred Rite, which from an anthropological stance renders the classification problematic. Star Trek can be more easily considered a religion. That said, atheism certainly can at least be classed as a religious movement.
I'll also note the validity of the scientific method can be inferred from more basic propositions—mostly axioms of set theory. Your position of "anything which we cannot discover and quantify through the scientific method" etc is a bit of a straw man; a sensible scientist understands that science is limited to addressing experience and what produces it, and that abstract mathematics is a linguistic precursor. (When math does not match experience, it doesn't mean the math is false, but merely the map of math to experience is incorrect. Euclidean geometry is valid, it just doesn't describe the space-time we occupy.) However, that also implies that in so far as Christians attribute experiences such as moral uplift to a deity, such a deity is experiential and within the reach of the study of science.
Upbeat Dad (2011-12-09@15:12), Anselm's arguments tend to implicitly presume a linear ordering. However, not all orderings are linear; some posets lack either meet or join. His arguments tend to be more useful for Attitude Bolstering and persuasion resistance than for persuading the attentive unconvinced.
Upbeat Dad (2011-12-09@21:13), without God, your life has no purpose, as you presently define the concept based on your relation to God; this does not, however, preclude it having a "purpose" under some other semantic mapping of string to concept, if you use another axiom to define what ordering relationship of choices "purpose" corresponds to.
Upbeat Dad (2011-12-09@22:05), one reason atheists even bother reading the National Catholic Register to begin with is that it shows up in Google news. It's interesting to see what the religious have to say about us. That said, based on Altemeyer's work, a lot of atheists do care—enough to have looked for the strongest arguments they can find on both sides. As to why waste time, your religious beliefs affect the choices you make; those choices empirically impact the society we both live in, sometimes in ways that under atheists' ordering relationships may be "bad". Provoking you to thought is one way to try and influence your pattern of choices. (It may or may not be an effective way.)
Coast Ranger (2011-12-09@14:18), your reasoning doesn't say the "transcendent cause" has to be God; from the standpoint of modern physics, the laws of thermodynamics suffice. Hawking's recent book discusses it; I can give an oversimplified dick-and-jane version. To within the current limits of measure, the positive mass-energy of matter and such is exactly equal in magnitude (but opposite in sign) to the mass-energy of space-time. (Google search for "zero energy universe" turns up some references, but you're better off buying a physics grad student a few beers to get details.) Thus, the transition from Nothing to Something doesn't violate the first law. From the standpoint of the Second law, entropy is defined as the log number of possible microstate arrangements; since there is only one way to arrange Nothing, the entropy of Nothing is log(1)=0. Since there is more than one way to arrange the Something, the entropy is higher than zero; thus, the net increase in entropy conforms to the tendency of the second law. Furthermore, Nothing also implies no Time to keep everything from happening at once. Thus, a full understanding of modern physics leads to the surprising result that we should expect Nothing to Explode into Something, At Once.
mk (2011-12-09@17:48), so, you're justifying the OUGHT from more basic premises. However, (b) looks to be circular insofar as "best" is not given an independent definition; and relying on (a) alone might present you difficulties if a Satanist should wander past. As to the lack of a referee, that does not require acceptance of either existence of revealed truth or that it is entrusted to the church; instead, we can try working from more basic mutually agreed propositions. Personally, I'm fond of the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction (that P OR Q is logically equivalent to Q OR P, such that either can be inferred from the other) as an opening for developing a mutual Relational sense of Truth. Of course, other points are also needed, and Semantic, Correspondence, and Moral ordering relationships take separate development.
Scwjr (2011-12-09@13:41), I'm less in disagreement than suggesting a refinement of the position, that it's only relative to a semantic choice of linguistic abstraction. I'll note non-contradiction doesn't always hold if you deal with perverse enough math; Heyting algebra seem pretty useless to me, but P-or-not-P isn't "True" there. I'm mostly noting that "we ought to obey God" appears to be taken without (or circular) justification from priors. If you define the ordering relationship of "ought" by some other axiom, then yes, there may be cases where you ought to disobey God.
@mk, when you spoke of consequences, behooving, and best interests. If what is moral depends entirely upon what is God, then it seems that God could dictate that it is moral to murder strangers we see walking on the street. God cannot and would not do this. God would be a good persons to consult about morality if you could prove that He existed, but even if the philosophical arguments that "prove" this matter are true, there is still a gap between the God Catholics believe in and this being. A feeling of burning in one's bosom is not sufficient to prove that the Magisterium is infallible about morals.
when you spoke of consequences, behooving, and best interests. If what is moral depends entirely upon what is God, then it seems that God could dictate that it is moral to murder strangers we see walking on the street. God cannot and would not do this. God would be a good persons to consult about morality if you could prove that He existed, but even if the philosophical arguments that "prove" this matter are true, there is still a gap between the God Catholics believe in and this being. A feeling of burning in one's bosom is not sufficient to prove that the Magisterium is infallible about morals.
@Coast Ranger
The idea is that there are laws that govern morality such that what is good for a particular nature is fixed without God. God can be free to create whatever nature God is free to create, but God does not determine what was good for that nature. If God had created humans differently then it would have followed as a matter of course that what is moral for humans would be different to. An analogy: the matter is like a chess player deciding what piece a pawn will become after it has advanced to the eighth rank. So Again, even if God does not exist, then it is still possible for life to have meaning because moral truths allow life to be meaningful, because God, even if He exists, did not cause moral truth to exist (only a particular instantiation of them).
Where did I say that I do what is good for reward or avoidance of punishment???
You write: "2) The laws of morality ultimately exist independently of God." It is kind of hard to figure out what you mean by this. I think if your claim were true then what you think is God is not him. The law cannot be greater than the law-giver.
Maybe what you mean is that the moral law cannot be arbitrary: something is not good or bad merely because God declares it to be so (this error is something Islam and Calvinism teach). Rather, morality grows out of the real nature of things. Human morality is rooted in human nature. God is the creator of human nature, so the morality which grows out of it is not really independent of God. It is part of one of his creature's nature.
Upbeat dad: Epic fail. If you rely on an 800 year old arguement without any better in the mean time, you lose. Sorry. CE 1200 does not well relate to CE 2000. You have much more invested in God than I do. I find him and St Nick ruffly eqivalent except for severity. St Nick only punishes for a year, Yahweh punishes for eternity.
But I emphatically do not accept that morality exists independent of God. That's like saying the Lord of the Rings exists independent of Tolkien!
What I say is that you can KNOW the moral laws, without acknowledging their author. Just as you can read The Two Towers without knowing who wrote it.
And I did not say that life is meaningful for moral reasons. I said that by meaningful I mean that I, as a human being, was created for a purpose.
Finally, I am saying that there cannot be an Objective Morality without God for the same reasons I say that there cannot be a Fellowship of the Ring without Tolkien. It didn't write itself. And if 10 of us are discussing the meaning behind The Trilogy and we find ourselves in disagreement, I would consider Tolkien to be the man to go to for the definitive answers…I realize he is dead, but regardless of what Neitchze claims, God is very much alive. It is from Him that I would seek the answer to questions pertaining to morality.
If you accept that there are moral laws independent of God such that they vindicate the proposition that we ought to obey God, then I do not understand why you would say things like: "I'm only arguing that there can be no "OBJECTIVE" Morality without a final authority" when it seems that you mean God by "final authority".
The idea that you ought to obey God because for reward or for avoidance of punishment is childish does not justify being moral. Sometimes in life we ought to do things which will not increase our happiness and will result in our suffering, whether or not there is eternal reward waiting for us upon our death is besides the point.
The idea that you choose to obey God because you love Him I don't think helps your case. Why should only love of God justify morality and not love for some human (for example)? I would expect you would answer that God is most worthy of our love because He is perfect, as if perfection were required to truly love someone!
But these points are ancillary to my original contention, which it seems that you already partially accept cf point "2".
1) Life's is "meaningful" for moral reasons.
2) The laws of morality ultimately exist independently of God.
3) As the laws of morality exist independently of God, they do not depend upon God for their existence.
therefore, 4) Life can be meaningful even if God does not exist.
I agree that a meaningful life is purpose driven, but the best purpose is virtue, and virtue depends upon the moral law that exists independently of God.
If I jump out of a plane without a parachute, I will most likely not be bragging about it the next day. This is called a consequence. There is a physical law, called gravity, and if I break it I will suffer the consequences. Likewise, there are moral laws. If I break them I will suffer the consequences. This is one reason for following Divine Law. Not because God told me to do so (Don't know where you got that I thought that), but because it behooves me to do so, just as it behooves me to remain in moving planes unless I am properly prepared.
I posted a much longer response, but it appears you'll never read it as it is being held prisoner.
It is SO frustrating to work for 45 minutes on a comment only to have it go into moderation…FOR AN ENTIRE DAY…and it's still not up.
I think when we say meaning, we are speaking of "purpose". We believe there is a purpose, a point, to life. It isn't random. We have life for a reason. That is what gives our lives meaning.
Atheism is a religion, because as practiced by its core evangelists (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and formerly Sagan) it has all the core elements and serves all the core functions which the things popularly recognized as "religions" have in common in the lives of their adherents:
1. Answers to the "What is, and where did it all come from?" question;
2. Answers to the "What is man, and what are his important features?" question;
3. Answers to the "How can we know what is true?" question;
4. Answers to the "What is good and evil, right and wrong?" question;
5. Answers to the "What is/are the big problem/problems, and how are they best solved?" question;
6. Common practices for reinforcing the religion's answers to the aforementioned questions in the believer;
7. Common practices for transmitting the religion's answers to the aforementioned questions to the minds of others and to the next generation.
Religions uniformly have most or all of these things, and knit them together in a reasonably integrated fashion to give integrated direction to the life of the individual. This can be said to be true of religions; it cannot be said to be true of things which are not religions; therefore, this approach is a good and rational and consistent way of defining the term "religion."
One cannot mandate that a religion includes belief in God or even the supernatural; Confucianism and Buddhism and Taoism and other things popularly viewed as religions do not. One cannot mandate a long history, either; or an acknowledged central authority: Many things popularly understood as religions would be excluded if one mandated this.
But define "religion" as a thing having the attributes I discussed above (or at least, a majority of them), and you get results which match the data set.
Furthermore, it becomes clear that evangelized atheism of the modern sort is quite definitely a religion, and should be understood that way in public policy (to name one area).
Atheism of this kind has experienced a kind of low-key state sanction in recent decades precisely because it pretends its claims are of another, non-religious, sort. It therefore can be "established" (in educational curricula, for example) without being an "establishment of religion." But this comes from a false notion that, by denying the supernatural, it fails to be a religion. (The fact that there are widely-acknowledged religions which share this attribute is passed over hastily.)
The atheist rejoinder is to claim that his view is the same thing as the scientific method, and that one cannot define his view as a religion without defining the scientific method as a religion, thereby excluding it from the classroom and having a disastrous effect on science education.
But this is false. The scientific method consists of using repeated and replicable experiments on observable things to exclude hypotheses about how the natural world works. A Christian can strongly support this approach because he believes that God created a rational universe and made man with human reason capable of apprehending truth about it, and because he believes in a character trait about God which gives moral certainty that God won't tinker with experimental results for spite. An atheist can strongly support it for other reasons. But an evangelical atheist who deduces from the success of the method such groaners as "there is no place for God as creator" or "anything which we cannot discover and quantify through the scientific method either does not exist, or we can't know anything meaningful about it" is not saying anything about science, but is merely making first-year philosophy errors.
So, yes, modern popular atheism is a religion. It should not be embarrassed about that; indeed, it thereby joins a noble tradition of human thought. And the admission might help it adopt better habits of ecumenical discourse with adherents of other faiths than it presently exhibits. When P.Z.Myers' colleagues are as embarrassed about his excesses as evangelical Christians are about Pat Robertson's functionally similar excesses, we'll have made real progress.
@ the atheists - and another thing…why do atheists even bother reading the National Catholic Register to begin with? Do you care? If we're all so full of "$h|+" as you claim, then why waste your time trolling here? Or is it that you are trying to "convert" us to your religion? And yes..atheism is a religion…
@ the atheists - Typical atheist response to Argument from Contingency: "um…yeah…but there was those pedophile priests…" Um..yeah…we know.. it's been in a few newspapers…time for you folks to get some new material.
@ the atheists - that said, I'd love to take all of you out for an ice cream cone, except for me..I'm vegan, so I'l have tofutti….
@ all - and that's another thing…Descartes says "I think therefore I exist." But…I cannot think unless I exist to begin with, but if my existence is contingent on whether or not I think, then I can neither think nor exist. I am neither the chicken nor the egg, in which case there is neither a chicken nor and egg but nothing. But…as the Church says…God creates ex nihilo (out of nothing) so we're back to "God thinks, therefore I exist."
You talk about what's necessary for life to be meaningful. But you don't define meaningful.
I might guess that what you're saying is that you cannot really be happy (life would be meaningless) if your mind was a biological thing that ends with death. That notion is, I certainly believe, rather disconcerting.
But this talk about "meaning" is really about psychology. And there ARE people who are happy even with a dissappointingly short existence.
@ Robert Hernandez - To continue…therefore my life has meaning precisely because God, who is the very foundation of being, has thought me into existence. Without God, my life has no meaning. Honest atheists understand this. After all, it was Jean Paul Sartre..atheist par excellence…who concluded that "life is absurd."
@ Robert Hernandez - I agree, and that ties in with the Argument from Contingency that I was making to Rover Serton and No Comment above. Meanings exist, but they do not have to exist, and indeed they cannot until they are thought into existence. Descartes says "I think, therefore I exist." The theist says "God thinks, therefore I exist."
If my understanding is correct, meaning is assigned by a mind. We cannot assign meaning to our lives before we exist, therefore the meaning in our lives is assigned by an external mind. Namely, the Mind of God.
@ Rover Serton - Yes I do think that that could convince people in this century that God is real…precisely because it already has. Many people (including Jennifer Fulwiler) have found his proofs compelling. Aquinas is just as relevant today as he was 800 years ago. What often makes Aquinas's proofs hard for some people to accept is the a priori assumption that when the Church uses the word "God" it is referring to a supreme being to be found somewhere in the universe (e.g., the flying spaghetti monster). But, for us Catholics, God is not "a being," in the contingent sense of that term, which is to say that God not one more being among many, but, rather, the very ground and foundation of "being" itself. In other words, God is not in the universe, but instead the universe is in God…a prospect that even the atheist Carl Sagan admitted as a possibility in his Cosmos series, although he used very different language to articulate the idea. Why does God not grow back a finger? Who knows? It's not a very interesting question. Why doesn't God let the White Sox win a series every now and then? Who cares. What is interesting is that the universe exists, but it does not have to exist. The universe itself is one giant contingency. What's on the the other side of the contingency equation? That's what Aquinas and the Church calls God.
Upbeat dad: I read your link: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/fiveways.htm
You really think that that would convince ANYONE in this century that God is real? 5 logical truths talking about momemtum etc?
If God wishes to prove he is real, let him grow a finger back of some child or fix a tooth cavity. I know the argument to follow "If God did something showy, it would remove free will". God and his church are not doing well, might be time to be a bit more obvious.
funny that DCB said about the same that I did with the delay in moderation.
The title makes no sense, the word atheism describe the objective state of belief about the existence of supernatural gods (all of them) that is simply true by the very existence of that state of non belief and it has nothing to do with the "meaning of life" (what does that even mean?) Atheists often know a lot about god beliefs, that is how we get to that position. We simply don't buy the stories of a magical beings told by the various human cultures.
I might ask why I ought to obey God? You would either refer to some reason outside of God (like I propose), or you would say "because God said so". This latter statement is not a proper answer.
Actually, I would say as Peter did…"To whom else would we go". It IS possible to obey God because He said so, or because you are afraid of the consequences, but personally I do it because a. I love Him. I can't imagine doing anything that would displease Him if it was in my power to refrain from doing it and b. Because following both the laws of morality and the laws of physics means cooperating with His grander scheme of things…it is in my, your, and everyones best interest to do so.
By using a little imagination you can see how one can maintain that objectivity, subjectivity, and relativity are all different things, and are not mutually exclusive.
No they are not mutually exclusive and yes of course they are all different. I don't believe I've said otherwise. I do think that I answered you inadvertently when I meant to be answering someone else. I haven't been following as closely as I usually do and probably should have simply stayed out of it. My point is that if we do not agree that there is an Objective Truth, and that this Truth has been revealed to us and put under the protection of the Church, then we are left without a "referee" when we disagree. The example of a painting is not appropriate because a painting is not a moral issue. It is a matter of taste. There is nothing wrong with coming to a compromise or a consensus when it comes to artwork. We are speaking however of morality. Of course our perceptions or understanding of morality will be subjective, but that does not make the morality itself subjective. The Moral Law remains objective, no matter what our impressions are…that is the very definition of objective. Once we admit this, then we can turn to the Church, whom God Himself appointed as judge and jury in His absence, to discern what that Truth is or is not. It is even possible that not all is yet understood. Again, this does not make it any less objective. As to answering to our Conscience…that is given that our Conscience has been well formed…and if it has, then it will inevitably fall in with Church Teaching. If it does not, then it is probably not well formed, or Jesus was a liar. I am not speaking of Churchmen, but of the Church Herself. Granted if a priest were to tell me that birth control was all right, then I would indeed turn to my conscience which would inform me that the priest was flat out wrong. BUT, if the Teaching Church ever tells me that it is okay, I will know that the Church is a lie and I will join the ranks of the Atheists!
As for a cup of tea and a good nights sleep…thank you very much, I think I'll take your advice. It sounds like a lovely idea.
Sorry Coast Ranger but I got to give this one to No Comment. Your arguement just says, Science doesn't know so "God" did it.
If this is just one of many logical arguements for God, can you give me one or two of the best ones?
I read alot about Jennifers Atheism. She was apparently truely without a god but not in an examined way. Kind of like not being a soccer fan without knowing what soccer was. Most of us atheists "know" alot about god. That is why we don't believe, not out of ignorance so much as out of study.
Hope all have a great holiday season!
I have to believe that ncregister has Atheist so much in the blog titles to toss out red meat.
This is about as compelling as the last time you tried this, Jen - as in, not. Your grasp of the concept of meaningfulness is apparently nonexistent, and you need to start there instead of blaming atheism. Is meaningfulness dependent on…
1. ...the existence of morality?
2. ...the existence of valuable experiences?
3. ...the existence of thoughts/experiences/actions that matter? (If so, is this different than #1?)
4. ...the ability to make a permanent difference in the world, or a permanent difference in someone's experience thereof?
5. ...simply the "sense" of meaning?
6. ...the ability to have something positive exist "outside of time" (whatever that means)?
Because just in this very short post you've hinted that all six of those might be important for meaning, and that makes absolutely no sense.
Until you figure out what (you think) meaning *is* and how it works, this whole conversation you're having is a waste of time. See: http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/11/mindology-day-part-1.html
@ No Comment - Faith and reason are not at odds. Logic can be a powerful tool in discerning the existence of God, and it has been used in the Catholic tradition for centuries. See the following from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica - five logical proofs for the existence of God.
I would not presume to convince "No Comment" of anything. However, I think the following is pretty logical.
1. It is reasonable to conclude from the data of modern physics that the universe had a true beginning (before which there was absolutely nothing physical in existence) some 13.7 billion years ago.
2. Nothing can not produce physical reality, because from nothing, nothing comes.
3. Therefore, something which is not a physical reality—that is, a transcendent cause—must have caused the universe. This transcendent cause which is outside of the physical reality of the universe is a philosophical name for God.
This is one of many logical arguments for the existence of God.
Jennifer is just grasping at straws when she tries to make a logical argument for Catholicism. Any "logic" for religion is based on the false premise that there is a God; atheists don't accept this premise. It is up to believers to convince us there is a God. There is no logic to prove that.
While it is true that 2+2=4 is true based upon what set of axioms you choose, your point does not defeat my argument (I think), because there are things that are true, which are so, not due to any formal reason. Moreover there are things which must be true, in any possible system (such as the principle of non-contradiction). If you can correct me, I am very interested to learn.
If I understand your second point correctly, it would seem that what I had said is not incorrect; the thrust of the point at issue was "if it is true that we ought to obey God, then there is a reason for this being true". This point suggests that it is possible that we ought to disobey God without some other reason besides God's word that would prohibit such an idea.
JG (2011-12-08@14:07), that the argument could just as easily ascribe purpose (keeping my terms consistent) to making others miserable doesn't mean that the definition is useless, but rather merely means that the axiom choice is arbitrary, and that can be taken in Refutation as well as Assertion. Taking it in assertion conforms more to the normal linguistic expectations; taking it in refutation involves a coordinate transform, which necessarily must be propagated through to other ought-ordering relationship terminology.
Bob Rowland (2011-12-08@17:11), not all those arguing here agree about the degree of reliability associated with the Bible; and if you feel that "this discussion is total wasted time", why did you bother joining in even to note that?
Scwjr (2011-12-09@00:15ish), "2+2=4" actually is a relative proposition, mathematically speaking. Specifically, it is made relative to the starting axioms (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory being the gold standard these days) and definitions (involving shorthand notations of properties whose existence is demonstrable from axioms). Similarly, this debate involves a disagreement on what axioms we are working relative to. Given the is-ought bridge principle that "you ought to do what God says", much of the Christian position follows. Where the Christian position fails is in the inability to encompass this is not the only possible is-ought principle for defining an ordering relationship on choices
mk (2011-12-08@19:59), your argument that objectivity requires authority merely means that you don't accept the principles proposed as meeting what YOU mean by "objective". You are certainly entitled to take this Humpty Dumpty like stance, but the most it signifies that there is a disagreement as to which pattern of noumena the symbol-string "objective" maps to; and, absent a basis universally accepted, your sense of "objective" and your choice of authority is itself not objective.
You also presume that any argument as to whether something is a moral principle ("law" is too ambiguous) must be because the person arguing does not want to follow the principle, not because they do not recognize the principle as genuine. This argument, however, could just have easily been made by the Romans demanding that Christians offer sacrifices to the divine Emperor; "oh, you recognize the principle, you just don't want him to prosper".
Yes, you believe "there is a final voice"; essentially, your IS-OUGHT bridge is the "you OUGHT to do what God says". This, however, is not objective; rather, it at best shifts the privileged subjective vantage to that of God—the Euthryphro classically points out a difficulty with that—and at worst shifts the privileged subjective vantage to the foolish human who claims they are speaking for God, or giving the One True interpretation of the words attributed to God.
You also neglect that rules may be relative not only to persons, but to events. Even from a biblical stance, it's clearly wrong to kill someone because you want to marry their widow, but it's not clearly wrong to kill someone in a war that is commanded by God. Carelessly sliding terminology from "relative" to "subjective" morality tends to render your arguments less persuasive to those who are closely scrutinizing them. They're two slightly different concepts.
I had not realized that I had engaged you in a debate. Well, since you have selected this combat and my role in it, let's at it.
I do not think that God was the author of the laws that govern morality any more than I think that God was the author of the laws of logic. God can issue commandments which persons would be bound to follow, but the reason that we would be bound to follow them is not because God issued them per se, but rather because the laws that govern morality dictate that it is right for a human to obey God.
Consider this: I might ask why I ought to obey God? You would either refer to some reason outside of God (like I propose), or you would say "because God said so". This latter statement is not a proper answer.
Furthermore, the idea that Christians successfully apply God's revealed general commandments to particular situations in their daily lives presupposes the idea of moral reasoning outside of revelation. An analogous case to this is how a text isn't sufficient for its own interpretation.
The source for this sort of independent moral reasoning would be akin to the source for the other things that exist necessarily. I would not say that the source for morality is biological (such a view is non-sense), morality is just part of the way things are.
Your ideas about the criterion for moral subjectivity are incorrect. It does not follow that if I disagree with a law, that it becomes relative for me since, it is possible that I act incorrectly. Again, if we disagree about something, our disagreement does not make it relative. I might disagree with you that 2+2=4, but my disagreement with you does not make the matter relative… And as far as subjectivity goes, everything is "subjective" in sense because it everything has a unique relation to "subjects", and every conscious individual is a subject…
Moreover, even if something is subjective, it does not follow that there is no rationality in it. Consider two people talking about a painting: One may like it, the other may not. But by talking together and discussing the painting's qualities, a consensus between the two people can be reached. By using a little imagination you can see how one can maintain that objectivity, subjectivity, and relativity are all different things, and are not mutually exclusive.
You also ought to read some Aquinas's moral philosophy, especially in regards to his recognition of the absolute duty everybody has to following their individual conscience (even into what would be known to be sin, if you had all the facts in front of you, because you are confused as to your options as a Catholic. You might also follow another of his pieces of advice and have a hot bath, a drink, and a good night sleep.
I had not realized that I had engaged you in a debate. Well, since you have selected this combat and my role in it, let's at it.
I do not think that God was the author of the laws that govern morality any more than I think that God was the author of the laws of logic. God can issue commandments which persons would be bound to follow, but the reason that we would be bound to follow them is not because God issued them per se, but rather because the laws that govern morality dictate that it is right for a human to obey God.
Consider this: I might ask why I ought to obey God? You would either refer to some reason outside of God (like I propose), or you would say "because God said so". This latter statement is not a proper answer.
Furthermore, the idea that Christians successfully apply God's revealed general commandments to particular situations in their daily lives presupposes the idea of moral reasoning outside of revelation. An analogous case to this is how a text isn't sufficient for its own interpretation.
The source for this sort of independent moral reasoning would be akin to the source for the other things that exist necessarily. I would not say that the source for morality is biological (such a view is non-sense), morality is just part of the way things are.
Your ideas about the criterion for moral subjectivity are incorrect. It does not follow that if I disagree with a law, that it becomes relative for me since, it is possible that I act incorrectly. Again, if we disagree about something, our disagreement does not make it relative. I might disagree with you that 2+2=4, but my disagreement with you does not make the matter relative… And as far as subjectivity goes, everything is "subjective" in sense because it everything has a unique relation to "subjects", and every conscious individual is a subject…
Moreover, even if something is subjective, it does not follow that there is no rationality in it. Consider two people talking about a painting: One may like it, the other may not. But by talking together and discussing the painting's qualities, a consensus between the two people can be reached. By using a little imagination you can see how one can maintain that objectivity, subjectivity, and relativity are all different things, and are not mutually exclusive.
You also ought to read some Aquinas's moral philosophy, especially in regards to his recognition of the absolute duty everybody has to the following their individual conscience (even into what would be known to be sin if you had all the facts in front of you), because you are confused as to what your options are as a Catholic. You might also follow another of his pieces of advice and have a hot bath, a drink, and a good night sleep.
I never said or implied that life was meaningless. I'm only arguing that there can be no "OBJECTIVE" Morality without a final authority. You can argue that some morality is innate, or biological, but you cannot say it is objective. Certainly, you cannot prove it to be so.
Unless there is an outside source for moral law, making it objective, then even if there is an innate "tendency" towards certain moral behaviors, there is no way of knowing what the OBJECTIVE Moral Truth is. It would be a matter of "agreeing", at which point it would cease to be objective. It would become either subjective, or relative.
Obviously, you do not see that God is the author. Which is fine. You can still recognize the laws. The problem is that at some point you will not want to follow a certain law, and then you will argue that it isn't a law. Catholics do not have that option. We believe, as you do not, that there is a final voice on what those laws are. And we believe that the Catholic Church was given the responsibility of guarding those laws.
A perfect example would be abortion. Or homosexuality. The argument above states that objective moral law is innate, biological. Yet many people believe that abortion or homosexual relations are not morally wrong. It is at this point that the non believer claiming to accept objective moral law runs into trouble. Either it is wrong for some and not wrong for others, making it relative. Wrong for all, which I'm sure you would disagree with. Or right for all, which I disagree with. As soon as we disagree we are making it subjective and it ceases to be objective. Unless of course we can turn to an authority that has the right to speak on the behalf of the author of moral law. Which of course, we believe, is the Catholic Church.
We have God's Word that the basic premise is flawed. In that context this discussion is total wasted time that could be used better to glorify God.
I thought becoming an atheist would free me to do whatever I wanted. The irony was that I found as an atheist there was nothing worth doing.
William James, from the essay "Is Life Worth Living?"
"For my own part, I do not know what the sweat and blood and tragedy of this life mean, if they mean anything short of [bearing fruit somewhere in an unseen spiritual world]. If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the Universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight; as if there were something really wild in the Universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses are needed to redeem."
James relies on analogies with material events to propose a possible universe where the unseen spiritual world is actually created and strengthened by our faith that it exists. Shades of Tinkerbell. But of course one can't prove or disprove a universe that is by definition undetectable by our senses and tools.
As a youth I angsted a lot over mortality after I had come to the conclusion there was insufficient evidence for the Catholic world view. I believe I was clinically depressed. It is possible that losing my faith was a contributing factor, but there were also physical problems that probably had more impact. I gradually recovered from depression and it's probably not accidental that my physical health improved along the same timeline.
I am convinced that brain chemistry accounts for whether we feel that life is worth living, and that life events that affect our emotions have good or bad effects on our brain chemistry. That is why both drugs and talk therapy can benefit depressed patients. James talked himself into affecting his brain chemistry for the better by accepting his feeling that "the fight" is real as proof that the fight is real. OK. Feelings are certainly real, but of course do not constitute proof that the feeling is based on reality. Witness the deluded individuals who become convinced that they have a deep emotional bond with a celebrity they never met.
Now I am sixty and seldom ponder whether life is meaningful in the absence of its having eternal cosmic significance. If I suffered sufficient physical problems and/or losses of loved ones, I might well decide that was time to withdraw. Or maybe not. I think it would depend on how my brain chemistry was affected by those events.
Death scares me, but I have come to understand that human beings are not equipped for immortality. We are all about curiosity, laughter (a reaction to the unexpected or incongruous), responding to change, competition, self-improvement, physical pleasures, and, above all, forming emotionally satisfying bonds with each other. One can fit humans into eternity only by postulating the existence of a "soul" which does not depend on the physical body. However we know that the latter is what produces consciousness, intelligence and emotion. We wouldn't recognize ourselves in eternity, much less our loved ones.
The fact that humans were selected to behave in a certain way, or to have a particular emotional state in conjunction with certain stimuli such that this emotional state acts as a form of motivation, does mean that an action is moral. If these actions are moral they are so for a reason independent of how they arose via the process of natural selection. Think of the difference between custom and morality; arguments that would pretend to fully explain morality by evolution are really talking about custom. If you want to argue that all morality is just custom, that's fine, but you should at least recognize that you aren't really talking about what people usually mean when they say morality…
@Micheal, it wouldn't be a gene… It would be some sort of an organ, like the eye, except that it would be used to sense the truth about moral claims… Do you think that humans require a similar kind of organ in order to know mathematical truths?
Re: :I've talked to quite a few Christians who say that if there were no eternal life for the soul, they would still find life to be meaningful. Maybe there's some gene that allows you to sense meaning even if you believe that you're faced with complete annihilation?" Perhaps its a reflection of the Christian adage that we're all hardwired for God, whether we realize/accept it or not.
"@Scotty, arguments that justify morality by evolutionary history miss the point…"
Why don't you enlighten me on how this objective measure of morality misses the point.
@Scotty, arguments that justify morality by evolutionary history miss the point…
@JG, Sometimes Christians justify morality by a "net gain" rationale too (cf. heaven and hell). Justification of moral action by dessert is for children (cf. dessert after dishes).
This atheist view of meaningfulness is focused on an assumed "net gain", of which morality is not a necessary part. The example you cite mentions "fulfillment" and making others happy, but the argument does not hinge on this. This argument could just as easily ascribe "meaning" to the perverted derivation of pleasure from making others miserable. This is an utterly useless definition of "meaning", which completely invalidates the argument.
"I hope you realize that your position that objective morality (though you don't use the term, it is implied) exists independently of God is a hardly a widely supported one. Certainly I have never seen a strong argument for the existence of objective good and evil without reference to God being the measuring stick."
Maryland, I can only assume you did not look very hard.
Also, look up Value Theory in google or wikipedia.
My position comes from the fact that there are necessary moral rules that even God must follow (though the following of these rules doesn't impinge upon God's omnipotence because it is in God's nature to follow them), and that these can are known and followed independently of our knowledge of God. After all, everyone agrees that there are virtuous pagans, and that these pagans aren't just being silly by being moral despite being ignorant of the existence of God.
Also this view is far, far, from novel. It's been around, at least since Plato wrote "Euthyphro".
Brian Westley (and others):
My promised reply has predictably (almost inevitably) mushroomed into a larger projected than I intended. Rather than continue to delay as I work on it, here is part 1 of my thoughts on atheism, meaning and God.
@Scwjr, I hope you realize that your position that objective morality (though you don't use the term, it is implied) exists independently of God is a hardly a widely supported one. Certainly I have never seen a strong argument for the existence of objective good and evil without reference to God being the measuring stick.
Paul (2011-12-07@15:34), just because death is the end for the individual doesn't mean there are no consequences, just that the consequences are for other people. This may be relevant even to an atheist, depending on where they keep their sense of identity; some resolutions of the Riddle of the Ship of Theseus can contribute to a broader sense of identity of this sort.
For oregon catholic (2011-12-07@5:52), in so far as Catholics must exercise free will in the choice to be Christian and live by those principles, do they not equally set themselves as the ULTIMATE "authority and arbiter of their morality and the meaning of their life"? In so far as an atheist consistently takes some philosophical principle to define morality, purpose, and authority, does not the principle instead become that ultimate basis, just as much as God is for a Christian?
As to Keith (2011-12-08@10:26), so you'd care to answer "What Is Truth"? For myself, I find it useful to distinguish between relational, grammatical, correspondence, and moral ordering relationship lattice supremum, so please try and be clear which you are referring to. And in less esoterica, I'm afraid the experimental data point against your claim of a general principle that the atheists tend to be more emotional in their argument. Particularly, I refer you to ISBN 1-57392-147-5, "Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion". Though there of course there can be outliers, among other findings of the sociological study behind the book was that the deconversions tended to be a result of extended intellectual inquiry, while conversions tended to be associated with emotionally stressful periods.
It is possible for life to be meaningful, even if God doesn't exist. When we say that God is morally good, this is a meaningful statement. This is possible because that which makes a thing moral exists apart from God*. If that which makes a thing moral exists apart from God, and the meaning of life is moral, then it is possible for life to be meaningful even if God doesn't exist.
*Divine fiat is not responsible for making an action moral: It is good to obey God's command for a reason other than God has said that it is good to obey my commands.
Except those very same questions can be asked of you. Who is the *author* of your god?
I believe morals originated under evolutionary pressures. Nobody required. Without morals our species would not have had the social cohesion to survive. I believe this because there is quite a bit of evidence to support it. Where is your evidence that morals come from an outside entity?
This is very interesting (but, of course, not meaningful or, to use another word, consequential but instead, trivial). I especially like Steven G's comments. It is difficult to take athiests seriously. Their lines of reasoning are so very incomplete and emotional. Ultimately, they are rooted in an avoidance of Truth, with a capital T. In short, when their synapses stop firing upon death, they will find out the Truth and say, "Oh! Wow! What a fool I was." Alas, they have convinced themselves of their "religion" and they must live in denial and avoidance of the Truth. For believers, it is fascinating and fun (hopefully in a charitable way) to watch them squirm and dangle upon their own silly thinking.
Posted by Tom R on Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011 7:21 PM (EST):
"My point is, that we will not convince an atheist through reason. Assuming the atheist is searching for truth, God must convince him through faith, because, in the end, that's what matters."
Tom you seem to understand atheism better than most believers—even those who converted from atheism. It couldn't be clearer that the existence of a Creator cannot be proven or disproven. It is irrational for believers to castigate atheists, because the God they believe in would have to know exactly what experiences would cause each and every atheist to question his or her atheism, and yet He doesn't provide those experiences. Even more puzzling is that He doesn't provide the correct faith to everyone, instead allowing billions of people to have the wrong faith.
You see the atheist's problem.
No, one doesn't have to believe in God to follow the Tao, but the next step after accepting that there is a Tao (an OBJECTIVE moral law) is to realize that it came from "somewhere" or "someone". It always comes down to the question of "On whose authority". YOU may not ask "WHO SAYS SO" but when someone else does, when someone questions you as to why they should follow this "Tao" or where this Tao comes from…what do you answer? On whose authority are we obligated to follow this Moral Law? Do you see what I am saying?
This is why I asked you the definition of Good and Evil. If they exist then there must be some standard that we use, which is objective. But if it's objective then it must come from somewhere other than ourselves (or it would be subjective/relative). So while you may not care, the question is still there…on whose authority? Where did the Tao come from?
I'm not sure how my name got cut off at 12:22am.
These are not positions that I hold, but they are positions that can be held. They make as much sense—and are subject to many of the same criticisms—as atheism that is really aspiritism. In THE PILGRIM'S REGRESS, C.S. Lewis included a character who followed "the rules" without bothering to wonder where they came from. I suspect such ideas were more popular at about the same time Deism and Masonry were "fashionable", since it merely disposes of their notion of a mostly-absent God.
As for why you would want to live forever as a disembodied spirit, you might as well ask why you want to live in 3 dimensions instead of 20, or why you want to be made mostly of spin-1/2 particles. No one is saying that *YOU* are God; you don't get to make these kinds of decisions.
Then explain it to us. Where did the "Tao" come from? Why should we "obey" it? What difference does it make? What happens if we ignore it? What is a soul? What happens to the soul after death? What is the definition of "good"? "Evil"? How do we know? Why should we care?
The reason we have a hard time accepting that you can believe in a Tao and a soul is that there is no point to a Tao without an "author" of said Tao, and there is no meaning to the word "soul" if it dies along with the body. As Verimius says…"Dead's dead". A soul is something "Spiritual", immaterial…eternal. Why would I want to live forever as a disembodied spirit? What would be the point? How would having a soul change how I live in my body?
Dead's dead and that's that.
It is possible to be an atheist without being a materialist. One could believe in both human souls and some kind of "Tao" without believing in a Supreme Being Who created the universe.
It seems odd to me that no one seems to actually believe that, though; odd, because just about every other conceivable position seems to be populated.
"And as for persecution, there is plenty of that being perpetrated on believers under the so-called separation of church and state", "Persecution of the majority by a minority is still persecution and still illegal."
So separation of church and state is "persecution", and is "illegal"? Lol. Christians are funny.
One of the pronlems in this type of arguement or discussion is that you are speaking fo feelings and chemicals. Wild statements about the existence or non existence of God and or souls are statements about facts not feelings. But in amongst the forest of trees is a fact that is not a feeling. There are chemicals and reactions and these do relate to "feelings" but why? For one thing it points to design. Why should chemicals in a human brain cause feelings when they don't in a petry dish? There is more here than accidental reactions and our ability to reflect on those reactions. God exists whether we believe in Him or not and our lives are meaningful whether we "feel" they are or not.
Persecution of the majority by a minority is still persecution and still illegal.
I could be totally wrong but I think one can define meaningful as those events which are not just worthy of being remembered but which, looking backward, you can see impacted every decision you made after that point and thus shaped your future. What is meaningful can be personal, relational, or cultural. An example of a personally meaningful event was the day that I found myself home alone for the first time at age 5. My decision in how to handle it left me confident and assured that I could, if I had to, take care of myself even if no one else were around. My self-confidence in my own abilities filtered into everything I did from that point forward, eliminating a lot of my fears and doubts that might otherwise have hindered me. An example of a relationally meaningful event was the day I gave birth to my son. It changed not only my life, but the lives of everyone I knew in a significant way. For me, every decision I made from that point forward was made with his needs and desires in mind. He significantly changed my life, and I know he did the same thing for his father and his grandparents and his aunts, uncles, and cousins. An example of a culturally meaningful event would be 9/11. It changed the way Americans viewed themselves and their world around them. Every law made from that point forward was made with 9/11 in mind - even if unspoken. When we serve the homeless, whether atheist or Catholic, it can be a personally meaningful event. It may change, for the rest of our lives, the way we view the homeless and the way we interact with the world. One does not have to have religion for something to be meaningful.
However, as a Catholic I believe that certain events are meaningful to us - and we are forever changed by those events - precisely because those events are direct attempts by God to communicate with us.
To Micah:
Yet the first man has made a positive difference in the world and the results of his actions live on.
The second man, in contrast, only has to accept Jesus as his savior before he dies and he goes to heaven.
Does this make sense to you?
"A thought experiment for atheists:
Assume there is no God and no afterlife.
One man lives his whole life devoted to serving the poor, fighting for his country, and loving his family. He dies defending the ones he lives in a bank heist and the funeral is broadcast on national television because of his heroism.
A second man lives the life of a scoundrel, robbing and thieving his way through life, never holding any relationships close to his heart, and always treating people as objects. He dies a miserable old man at the end of his own gun.
Which of these men has more to be proud of?"
"And as for persecution, there is plenty of that being perpetrated on believers under the so-called separation of church and state. What radical atheists want is for atheism to be the state religion."
Ahh yes, the persecution of the majority. I love some of Jon Stewart's quotes on this:
""Does anyone know…does the Christian persecution complex have an expiration date? Because…uh…you've all been in charge pretty much since…uh…what was that guys name…Constantine. He converted in, what was it, 312 A.D. I'm just saying, enjoy your success."
"I have to say, as someone who is not a Christian, it's hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of this country — or maybe forty-four in a row. But that's my point, is they've taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status."
In order to find what is "meaningful", I think it is helpful to look at a classical case of meaningless activity. The example I am thinking of is Sisyphus. Why is Sisyphus' actions meaningless? Precisely because they have no effect. What I am implying is for something to have meaning it must have an effect. Some might even narrow this to a good effect but we don't have to for the point of this discussion.
So, how are our lives meaningful. Well, from a subjective sense our lives are meaningful. For instance, I can have a meaningful life in relation to my community if I volunteer and help people within it. I can have a meaningful life in relation to humanity if I cured AIDs! I can have a meaningful life in relation to my family if I raise my children well. Even then I may have a meaningful life by their personal effects made possible by my participation in their existence and formation. This would be less so for each successive generation, but you get the idea. This is why I believe why when people say, "My life is meaningful because of ____ ", 'family' is most often the choice. It seems like the most substantial thing we do.
But the real question is do we have an objectively meaningful life? The subjective is only what something appears to us or people at large (community/humanity). In an atheist mindset this is impossible. We know for a fact that all time will come to an end. The sun will blow up etc etc and all our actions will matter not. This is an inescapable fact.
From a Catholic point of view this absurdity is avoided. Our lives end and a reflection of our merits/sins are perpetuated forevermore. This means that our lives have permanent effect, and therefore objective meaning. See… it's simple!
"If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you.
But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called "education."
An excellent example of flawed reasoning and hypocrisy put forth in the smug, oh, so rational voice of atheism. Ignore all the good that doesn't prove your point. Atheists are no more likely to be persuaded from their religion by reasoned argument than anyone else - they just think so - because when thinking is all you have then thinking must make it so.
And as for persecution, there is plenty of that being perpetrated on believers under the so-called separation of church and state. What radical atheists want is for atheism to be the state religion.
I should add this quote from Russell, since the article had one:
Many of the objections to what is called "faith" do not depend in any way upon what the faith in question may be. You may believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible or of the Koran or of Marx's Capital. Whichever of these beliefs you entertain, you have to close your mind against evidence; and if you close your mind against evidence in one respect, you will also do so in another, if the temptation is strong. The Duke of Wellington never allowed himself to doubt the value of the playing fields of Eton, and was therefore never able to accept the superiority of the rifle to the old-fashioned musket. You may say that belief in God is not as harmful as belief in the playing fields of Eton. I will not argue on this point, except to say that it becomes harmful in proportion as you secretly doubt whether it is in accordance with the facts. The important thing is not what you believe, but how you believe it. There was a time when it was rational to believe that the earth is flat. At that time this belief did not have the bad consequences belonging to what is called "faith." But the people who, in our day, persist in believing that the earth is flat, have to close their minds against reason and to open them to every kind of absurdity in addition to the one from which they start. If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called "education."
Tom R,
I highly doubt faith would convince me, as I would still have reason. Why would I assume faith in God is any different than faith in Shiva, ancestor spirits, or Isis? people have faith in many mutually exclusive religions; how would I know I have the correct one?
This is all nonsense, because no one can prove the existence of God, or of an eternal life. You either have the gift of faith, or you don't. Faith is defined as an ability to believe in something that exceeds logical comprehension. BTW - I'm speaking as a Catholic here, and there is nothing in the catechism that refutes this.
So, to give an atheist a comparison of a good selfless life, and a bad, selfish one is a useless exercise. There is no thought experiment there for an atheist. He will simply say - "Yep, the selfless atheist died. I suspect he was happier during the course of his own life than the selfish one, who also died, but in the end, they are both pieces of clay, and I really don't know. Anyone can make of that what they will. This happens all the time in the real world - there are selfish people, and selfless ones. The God hypothesis is not necessary." (That of course is not in the catechism, so make sure you understand that I'm talking about a hypothetical, atheist position here, not my own belief.)
Just because you and I have the gift of faith does not make the atheist's position illogical. In fact, the atheist would argue that our position is the illogical one, because it presumes to define an unknown causative agent as God, whereas they would claim they simply don't know the causative agent is.
My point is, that we will not convince an atheist through reason. Assuming the atheist is searching for truth, God must convince him through faith, because, in the end, that's what matters.
Andrew and Scotty,
You just might consider that since you don't believe in God there might be some things having to do with God such as OBJECTIVE LOVE, OBJECTIVE TRUTH, the MEANING OF LIFE, FAITH in something greater than what you can rationalize, etc. that you don't, won't, and can't understand. I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
I sure don't get the remark about keeping it "classy". Did I unknowingly use offensive language - something like the atheist equivalent of calling God a sky-daddy? If so, I apologize.
Sure it does, the meaning of life is simple…
Step 1: find man or women
Step 2: Fuck them.
Oregon catholic:
Glad to see you're keepin' it classy, Oregon Catholic and johnnyc.
Seriously, though, the whole "you may *say* you're a humanist atheist, but you're actually an immoral, narcissicistic monster" thing is one of the most repugnant things anyone has ever said to me—and it gets said to me a lot. Your view of this is nasty, petty, and profoundly, astoundingly limited.
Atheists say they don't need a god to find their life meaningful or act morally. I don't buy that they don't need a god. What they really mean is they don't need any other god besides themselves. They set themselves up as the ultimate authority and arbiter of their morality and the meaning of their life. Their entire world view and definition of morality is subjective unto themselves. Even when they seem to love others or behave morally, it will almost never be equal to the kind of radical selfless love that Jesus calls us to. Concepts such as finding meaning in suffering, or loving your enemy can never be anything but ridiculous to an atheist point of view.
Atheists doing 'good', 'meaningful' things? I chalk that up to God can and will use anyone…
I do always enjoy reading articles by "former" atheists. It's one thing to be "unconverted," which is indeed atheist. It is another entirely, to have made an honest evaluation of the arguments and evidence (or lack thereof) for belief and come to that conclusion.
My actions have "meaning" to the people they affect. That they can be explained through scientific processes does not make the affect any less "meaningful" to the person affected.
Did Abraham Lincoln's actions have meaning to the slaves during the Civil War? Does his life have meaning to that next generation? And the next? What about to today's generation?
We all describe meaning in terms of the effect on real things. There's no need to appeal to the supernatural.
That is, IF Steven Greydanus exists as more than an epiphenomenon of neural synapses.
BTW, Richard Dawkins wrote in my combox a few hours ago, in my Open Invitation for him to debate someone his own size. Funny. www.patrickcoffin.net.
@chris, Certainly, it is not the Christian position that this life is meaningless. The proper Christian position is to view this life as a gift from God and as an opportunity to prepare ourselves for our immortal lives in heaven. If Christianity is true, then all of us, Christian or not, make the only important choices that really matter in this life (i.e., to serve God or not).
Note, I would also point out that the mere fact that something is precious to you does not necessarily give it meaning.
You have it backwards. Your question should be "If religion is true, does life still have meaning?".
I've had religious people tell me that this life is meaningless as they're just waiting for the afterlife.
For me, every second, every experience, every breath, every sunset and every kiss is precious.
There is no god. Stop inventing your own foundless evidence.
It may turn out that our consciousness can be reduced to purely chemical reactions. However, since those chemical reactions are deterministic processes, they are written into the information in our universe, and this information cannot be destroyed. In this sense, our actions may be genuinely timeless.
If an outcome, belief, attitude or choice has different consequences then it has meaning. This can be very short term and effect only me or effect me and others for the rest of my life. If death is the end then ultimately there are no consequences, if life is everlasting with a final judgment then there are consequences and meaning. It is possible to a degree to be protected in life from the consequences of our actions and then life can start to feel meaningless and boring and then to make the mistake of trying to find meaning and excitement in unhealthy ways such as gambling to give just one example.
Jennifer, exactly!! Thank you. I have had this discussion with atheists a hundred times and your words really sum up my feelings. I have resorted to using the words "ultimate meaning" when discussing it now, since atheists are adamant about the fact that what they do has "meaning". But, logically, it has no ULTIMATE meaning at all. We all simply go "poof".
It's the emphasis on the word meaning that's at fault. Life absolutely does not have to have /meaning/, in the sense that there must be some greater pattern discerned when viewed from above. Satisfaction when looking back at one's life experiences amounts to the same thing. As Homer Simpson would say, "It's just a bunch of stuff that happened." The 'stuff' is up to you. Sorry, but the entire article amounts to a eulogy for your immortal soul. The bitter-sweetness of our own mortality is half of why it's such a healthy outlook! The 'stuff' is the other.
The use of the word "meaning" in this context makes some discussion of the underlying semantics problematic. The sense intended appears effectively unchanged by substituting "purpose", so that the salience sense of "meaning" doesn't get confused with the semantic signification sense of "meaning".
A system of morality defines what mathematicians would term a poset—an ordering relationship on a set of choices, with choice A being potentially better (greater) than, worse (less) than, equivalent, or incomparable to some choice B. To reference Hume's terms, it's an ought-ordering of is-choices; the basis for which, as Hume suggests, requires some additional axiom to signify which ought-ordering is meant by "ought" and other related terms. "Purpose" seems to be one such term, involving preferring one sort of consequence over another. (Those preferring deontological to consequential ethics can translate the former to the latter; a rule of choosing X over Y equals favoring the consequence of X being chosen over Y.)
In the case of Christianity, the ultimate most basic axiom that underlies the nature of "purpose" and bridges the is-ought divide is that "you ought to do what God wants", with the Bible elaborating the details of what it is that God wants. In the absence of God, this axiom collapses the ordering relationship to a trivial one where (depending on perspective) all choices are incomparable (even to themselves). However, this does not mean that there can be no ordering relationship possible; rather, it means there must be some other axiom taken as a starting point. In fact, it is simple to construct one that is functionally equivalent in effect (though likely seeming rather more capricious to start) by directly saying "you ought to do what the bible says".
Axioms are taken as primary premises unrelying on justification by inference from any priors—"on faith". One might try to justify that doing what God wants is obedience to authority, but that merely shifts the unjustified starting axiom to "you OUGHT to obey authority", or sends you into a loop of circular reasoning. The nature of the axioms taken merely constrains the form of the primary undefined entities of the axiom system; whether you take the assertion or refutation of Euclid's Fifth postulate merely means you're talking about different sorts of "lines", "planes", and "space". Thus, while the ordering relationship of "good" in this Christian frame has become meaningless in the absence of God, that doesn't mean no other basis can exist. It merely means a need to rely on some other ultimate basis.
Or, more succinctly (and the point of my opening distinction): atheists simply use a different axiom than theists to define the meaning when they use the word "purpose". And, like any other axiom, it doesn't need any more justification than "faith", or perhaps "that's what ***I*** mean by the word".
What axiom? Well, that depends on the atheist. Looking at history, both Soviet Communism and Ayn Randite Capitalism are atheist philosophies, and take different starting points to come to conclusions that at many points radically differ from each other and from Christianity. Though neither of the two is extinct, various "secular humanist" approaches seem more common among western atheists these days, usually based in part on some balance of equitability, reciprocity, and preference of pleasure over pain. The end result tends to have a lot of similarities to most of the beliefs about how one ought to interact with one's fellow humans that tend to be in common across the sects of Christianity.
Feel free to find an atheist and inquire as to what their most basic starting point is.
I must confess that this blog and most of the comments just make my head hurt. I'll stick with a simple idea: "Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it."
Luke 18:17 (Douay-Rheims)
Long ago I accepted the fact that I will never know all the answers, nor will I have proof of everything that makes sense in this world. I am okay with that.
Sorry Jared, I don't understand your question.
Scotty from Oakland, right, I understand that science explains the material. The question is why have you chosen to accept that rather than lies? My point is that you have to assume that is correct.
It's just too gooey to bother arguing about.
Here's why:
You fail to define "meaning" in such a way that no natural phenomenon can be "meaningful"—by which I mean you fail to define "meaning" at all, but instead take it for granted that we all have a gooey "feeling" about what is "meaningful".
Then, when a natural explanation, taking into account that feelings are real, suggests that feelings are sufficient to give "meaning," you reject it as insufficient. What is your basis for this rejection? It's a natural explanation. You are being circular.
Get your head out of the theistic mode and define meaning so that it is identifyable, or just stop trying to discuss "meaning" in any rational sense.
Until you can define it, you can't argue about it rationally.
I'm an atheist who's been studying Catholicism for some time. I've read Jen's reductionist objection before without being too troubled, but Douthat's thought experiment really galvanized me. I've been noodling over some possible rebuttals (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2011/11/its-a-fair-cop-douthat.html) but I'll admit I don't find any of my ideas really compelling. Any help?
Your article seems to assume that the atheist is committed to physicalism. But, I don't see why the atheist can't be a dualist, like an emergent dualist.
If our lives having meaning, involves something other than our phenomonological experiences, I'd question whether it really *matters* whether our lives have meaning.
That is, supposing my life doesn't have meaning, if I'll still go on through life as I am now, I don't think I'd care? Is this intended to be an objection to atheism?
Fair enough.
-Perhaps it can, but when the thing itself ends, then the meaning, being attached to that thing, must as well. So the meaning is temporary but then - why care? In the end it won't matter since everything to which meaning is attached will end.
-It doesn't transform the value you place on your family. It places value on your family, which you just happen to recognize, whether or not you see the source.
-This life is meaningful because it's a period of formation: it's when we make ourselves and help to make others who they will be in the eternity to follow (which is better thought of as timeless rather than as lasting for a very long time).
The thing is though that the infinite whys must stop eventually if there is to be any explanation at all (and if there is no explanation then there is no meaning). And what they stop on we shall call…
Brian Westley,
Great question. God gives meaning to life because God - at least according to the Catholic conception of God as I understand it - is the ground of Truth, Goodness, Love, Beauty, etc - thus making truth, goodness, love, beauty objective rather than subjective. Something is good not because it makes me feel good or I happen to think it's good for me, but something is good because it participates in the goodness that is God. Without God, or at least some sort of metaphysical ground for goodness, then goodness - in an absolute sense - is a meaningless term; it could only have meaning in a relative sense. In other words, meaning, goodness, love, etc, these things are metaphysical, and therefore require a metaphysical ground.
You can't get an ought from an is.
But what do we fill ourselves with to get the meaning? We can't just delude ourselves. meaning has to existence objectively somewhere.
You said:
"And morality has never been about how we feel like acting, but about how our acts effect others."
If you're a utilitarian. Besides, you still have to make value judgements regarding what's "good" or "bad" for others, which, without an objective, metaphysical ground for what's good or bad, ends up just being arbitrary.
You said:
"If you're idea of morality is what the toughest guy you know (God) tells you to do, that is also NOT morality, that's either extortion (hell) or bribe (heaven)."
And this is not the Catholic idea of morality (or the Catholic conception of God). Something is *not* morally right or wrong so much because God says so. Neither is there a morality that exists outside of God that is also applied to him. (I believe this is the classic Euthyphro problem.) Instead, Catholics say that there is a third option: the ground of morality is the very nature of God himself. God is not good, so much as he IS goodness itself. God is not loving, so much as he IS love itself (1 John 4). Etc. God IS the objective, metaphysical ground of these things. Thus, I do what's right not because God has threatened me (although sometimes I need a little encouragement!), but because it's the right thing to do, as grounded in God Himself.
To Jacob S: Play the "Why" game with your own understanding of meaning & see if you get any better answers.
-Why can't something be temporarily meaningful?
-Why does the existence of a god transform the value I place on my family from a bunch of meaningless nonsense into an undeniable fact?
-Why is this life meaningful if it barely qualifies as a split second of an eternal existence?
I'm sure you could come up with answers just as an atheist could come up with answers to your questions, but just as I'm sure you would continue to ask follow-up "Whys" of us infinitely, we could do the same to you.
Ultimately what I find interesting is that if one accepts the atheist argument about "meaning", then only humans can have meaning since they are the only ones who can create their own meaning. Therefore, at best, humans are transitory being with ephemeral meaning surrounded by a meaningless Universe.
With Christianity, I may be like a grain of sand compared to God, but somehow, just as the grain of sand does, my existence, and what I do with it, matters to God. There is meaning in everything that exists. I know which Universe I prefer to live in.
It is often forgotten that there's no hard & fast law of the universe that in order for something to be valuable or meaningful, it has to be valuable or meaninful forever. Even if it's true that there's eternal life after death, there would be countless things we valued on earth that would eventually fade away to nothing (eg. art, music, relationships we built with people we've long since forgotten, etc.). I wouldn't say that the Mona Lisa is valueless/meaningless just because it will cease to exist one day. All we know for certain in life is that there is local value/meaning; some of us assume that there is infinite, universal meaning, but it just may be that THAT is the kind of meaning that is fanciful & pointless to pursue.
It's also worth mentioning that if you really run with the possibility that "consciousness is just a mirage produced by chemical reactions in our brains," then you must keep in mind that it has always been that way. The meaning you & everyone who has ever lived places on the things we hold dear is just such a mirage. All the poems that have been produced expounding on how much something meant to the poet was really a description of their subjective preferences. The things our ancestors fought & died for were only as valuable as they believed them to be. The fact that their meaning/values were not objective didn't affect the level of passion the poets & heroes of the past had for the things they believed in, so why must it affect ours?
We know for a fact that what we call flavor is just a series of chemical reactions between the things we eat, our taste buds, and receptors in the brain; does knowing that make anything taste less delicious? Would knowing the value you place on your children was directly linked to your physiology make you value them any less? Anyone who can come up with a better reason for valuing something other than "it just IS valuable so I have to" should be able to appreciate the impact of proximate value.
RevWubby says: "Meaning isn't dependent on how long an act or feeling lasts, but on how it impacts those who experience it."
Allow me to play the part of the two year old: Why?
Why does a positive impact on others magically confer meaning?
Why are certain impacts considered positive?
Why does the fact that something makes some of us happy make it positive?
Why do things that make those of us we label as "weird" happy not count as positive (ie. mass murder)?
Why does this life being the only chance we have make it anything special?
Why, in short, should I get out of the bed in the morning?
Also, I have to point out that the understanding of heaven and hell you are arguing against is about a 6-year-old's level of understanding of things. There's more to it than that, though I guess it's no surprise that that's all that many people know, since for a while now most religious messages were limited to the lovey-dovey help each other stuff. (Not that that's bad, it's just not all)
Micah, about your assertion that atheism leads to hedonism, see
There has been a lot of research conducted after this as well.
"If science tells me that it is just chemical reactions, it seems to beg the question, "Why do I trust science?""
Because it has been shown to work and magic hasn't?
A thought experiment for atheists:
Assume there is no God and no afterlife.
One man lives his whole life devoted to serving the poor, fighting for his country, and loving his family. He dies defending the ones he lives in a bank heist and the funeral is broadcast on national television because of his heroism.
A second man lives the life of a scoundrel, robbing and thieving his way through life, never holding any relationships close to his heart, and always treating people as objects. He dies a miserable old man at the end of his own gun.
Which of these men has more to be proud of?
Neither. They ceased to exist when they died. You have to exist to be proud.
Ultimately, atheism gives itself over to hedonism, because no matter how good or how bad you are, you die, and since atheism also gives itself over to consequentialism (since there is no objective truth), why not enjoy yourself and live that life of hedonism?
Real meaningfulness, the kind a man can take permanent pride in, does not exist for the atheist.
"Modern atheism denies that human consciousness is rooted in anything other than the chemicals in our brains, thus rejecting the idea that any of our experiences will last outside of time."
Actually, *modern atheism* is the same as it's always been. A lack of belief in supernatural deities.
What your talking about in reality is a non sequitur. Both views have an identical outcome independent of the existence of a deity.
"That's because you're working with a limited idea of what "a god" is."
Ahh, the No true Scotsman argument. In reality a large majority of atheists were theists at one time. Try this: Define what "a god" is.
I just find it strange that something immaterial like logic or reason or scientific method is used as an objective standard for a line of thinking that rejects the immaterial. Why not illogic? Why even hold to philosophical proofs like the Theory of Non-contradiction? Why can't the atheist just claim to be a theist too? If science tells me that it is just chemical reactions, it seems to beg the question, "Why do I trust science?"
It is also in this sense that the athiest wants to "have his cake and eat it too."
"Everything in the 4-d block has always existed and will always exist. Universe + time = 4-d block. This is just a corollary of Special Relativity."
Awesome! I'd never thought about the 4-D block as always existing. That explains how we have a God who changes not taking part in a changing universe. He sees the entire 4-D block as one completed unit. Brain-warping meditation though.
And my phone browser cut me off. To continue:
You can imagine this if you represent each instant in the universe on the surface of a very thin piece of paper. If you looked at the paper, you could see little tiny galaxies and stuff, like a photograph. Now as each instant of the universe ticks by, another page is added to the top of the previous piece of paper. Eventually the galaxies would spread apart, and stars would twinkle out. In this way the entire universe, through its entire history, would end up looking like a block of paper (a 3-d block). Now, since we all know the universe is 3-d, then by adding each instant of time we would end up with a 4-d block. This 4-d "block universe" is also known as Minkowski "spacetime", as space and time in the block are treated pretty much the same, and always have to be talked about in conjunction. Everything in the 4-d block has always existed and will always exist. Universe + time = 4-d block. This is just a corollary of Special Relativity.
"Modern atheism denies that human consciousness is rooted in anything other than the chemicals in our brains, thus rejecting the idea that any of our experiences will last outside of time; yet it also tries to say that our consciousness and experiences are meaningful. I don't see how both of those assertions can be true."
I would argue your logic is incorrect because of your assumptions regarding time are incorrect. That's the point Einstein was making when he said time is a stubbornly persistant illusion.
The problem with this line of 'argument' is that you're baking in a very complex and non-universal notion of "meaning" without acknowledging it. Most non-theists and irreligionists are perfectly happy with the idea that the "meaning" of their lives is what they find in it — we're really existentialists at heart. The fact that there's no sky-man watching us live our lives doesn't change the meaning we find in it, because we find that meaning *ourselves*.
On the other hand, you seem to have a notion of "meaning" that requires an external agent. I'm not really sure what this would even look like. Before you spend any more energy blustering about how we atheists can't possibly find meaning in our lives (when we so obviously do), perhaps you should explain just what it is that you mean by the word, how the existence of your god enables you to find that meaning when you otherwise couldn't, and why any of us should take your notion of the thing seriously.
Brian Westley: You write:
I still haven't seen a cogent argument from anyone on why a god (or eternal life, or some other factor) changes a meaningless existence into a meaningful one. Once again, it seems to come down to arbitrary "feelings" instead of reason."
That's because you're working with a limited idea of what "a god" is.
I have more to say on this, but I'll write it up in a blog post of my own in a few hours. Cheers.
Our lives have the meaning we fill them with, but if we try to ask someone else to give our lives a meaning, we are trying to abdicate our responsibility to that life. God can NOT give us meaning, even if He created us. And morality has never been about how we feel like acting, but about how our acts effect others. If you're idea of morality is what the toughest guy you know (God) tells you to do, that is also NOT morality, that's either extortion (hell) or bribe (heaven).
My cousin, who I pray for, but we have not gotten along really since I told her I was becoming Catholic is Atheist. There is one thing from your entry that made me really think of her:
"My intent here is simply to point out that you can't have it both ways: Modern atheism denies that human consciousness is rooted in anything other than the chemicals in our brains, thus rejecting the idea that any of our experiences will last outside of time; yet it also tries to say that our consciousness and experiences are meaningful. I don't see how both of those assertions can be true."
That is her mindset exactly. Thank you writing this entry, it does help me understand something I never understood about my cousin's views and now I will pray more for her and hopefully with this new knowledge I will be able to have a dialouge with her.
God Bless,
PS: Keep up the good work.
I still haven't seen a cogent argument from anyone on why a god (or eternal life, or some other factor) changes a meaningless existence into a meaningful one. Once again, it seems to come down to arbitrary "feelings" instead of reason.
If atheism is true, "meaning" has no meaning.
More precisely, "meaning" is a sound associated with a bio-electrochemical flutter in the human nervous system. The bio-electrochemical flutter is not itself a reflection of some objective state of affairs, like my perception of brightness on a sunny morning. It's just something my body does, like getting hungry or sleepy.
Possibly it is evolutionarily advantageous, or perhaps not. But it doesn't, on the presumption of atheism, tell me about reality—except that that is precisely what it feels like it does do, which is why we attend to it and consider it so important. We feel that "meaning" is more than a feeling.
What's more, we feel that it has implications not only for how we ought to act, but for how other people ought to act too—a strange state of affairs on the presumption of atheism. As if my being hungry means my neighbor ought to eat.
The atheist response seems to me to be like saying "well, we all observe that gravity exists, we see it's effects and it's not like someone can just stop acting like it exists. So what's with all the questions of how it works? If you need some special "theory of gravity" to stay hooked to the ground, so be it, but I don't need one. My life gets along just fine without any of your physics."
What response can you give to that? If someone wishes to remain ignorant then you cannot force them to question and grow.
And St Paul writes " if there is no resurrection then we are the greatest of fools". keep writing too Jennifer.
This is soo Dostoevsky :) !! Its such a wonder how each man tries to find the answer to the same questions, since times immemorial.
God creates man in His image and likeness, but He sure creates them unique. And as Pope Benedict says, He also puts in each person's heart that quest for Him, that search that can only find its completion in Him..
Meaning isn't dependent on how long an act or feeling lasts, but on how it impacts those who experience it. The life we live has special meaning because it's the only chance we get. It's not a test to see if we qualify for the grand prize (heaven) in the end, but a singular experience. We have to make it matter to ourselves and the other people we share this world with, otherwise we are just selfishly trying to win supernatural lottery.
A soul is a thing that, despite being both invisible and undetectable, is considered more important than a living person's happiness, well being and very life. This morally bankrupt viewpoint leads to the devaluing of human life and the reliance on an imaginary afterlife to give meaning to people's lives.
Denying death doesn't magically make life more meaningful. It's in the content of that life that gives it meaning. Atheism itself doesn't provide meaning either, but how a person lives, atheist or theist, that matters. And living a life without expectation of reward or threat of punishment frees one to serve others, not ones own selfish agenda.