I know I said that my next post would be on the evidence for evolution — it’s just taking longer on that one than I anticipated. There’s so much information to go through! I’ve also been pretty behind on my reading. There are a number of blogs that I like to follow, but I don’t always have time to read their posts. So I’ve been playing a little catch-up lately.
I finally had time to read a lengthy post over at Left Christianity. Brenda had received the following comment from someone:
Brenda, if atheism is true, then regardless of what pleasure and satisfaction you may find in your life there is no rational grounds for believing that your existence and choices have any objective meaning, value, or purpose. Do you agree? I get the impression, judging from the rather blithe tone of your writing throughout much of this blog, that you don’t.
Many prominent atheist thinkers have agreed on the point that to behave as though one’s life has meaning in the absence of an infinite-personal creator God is fundamentally absurd. It’s necessary for survival, but nonetheless delusional. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, Camus, and even Richard Dawkins have said this.
It seems to me, based on what I’ve seen on this blog, that you have a double-standard when it comes to thinking logically about atheism. On one hand you defend it as a rational position. And maybe it is. But on the other, you seem to believe that your life is intrinsically valuable and meaningful. Maybe to you it is, but what objective basis is there for such a belief? I challenge you to think on this, to consider whether you’re willing to stare the logical consequences of atheism fully in the face.
I think this is something that many believers wonder about. Brenda’s response is superb. Please go read it! And if you’d like to see a similar conversation that we’ve had on this blog before, you can find that here.