This is reality in a universe without God: there is no hope; there is no purpose. It reminds me of T.S. Eliot’s haunting lines:
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.What is true of mankind as a whole is true of each of us individually: we are here to no purpose. If there is no God, then our life is not fundamentally different from that of a dog.
— William Lane Craig
I heard this quote recently, and I immediately thought, it’s also not fundamentally different from that of a god. If God is the “uncaused first cause,” then his life has no higher purpose. There is no “reason” for him to exist. In fact, when you really get down to it, the best reason for God to exist is to explain our own existence. Doesn’t that minimize his importance when you look at it that way? So many of the arguments for God really come down to saying:
We’re so magnificent and complex, we simply can’t be an accident! There must be some reason for our being here! So if we exist, God must exist.
Talk about arrogance! We think so highly of ourselves that we insist the Universe was created for us. But this insistence creates an interesting problem. It claims that we’re so amazing, we deserve to have a higher power interested in us. But this higher power doesn’t deserve the same thing?
If our lives are empty and meaningless without God, what does it say about God’s existence? Wouldn’t his be just as meaningless and empty?
On the other hand, if we say his existence isn’t meaningless because he infuses it with his own meaning and purpose, why couldn’t that same thing be true of us? Instead of having a purpose given to us, we make our own.
Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience answered the issue this way:
You know, to put it simply, I guess this whole line of argument really just seems like wishful thinking to me. Am I missing something? Do you think the “higher purpose” argument is convincing to many people?
Finding Truth 
Sure, in an “ultimate” kind of way. But you shouldn’t discount your own valuation of things. Throughout your entire life, you will find meaning in certain things. For you, your life is “eternity,” since it’s the entirety of your existence. So in a way, anything that you find meaningful is meaningful in an ultimate sense.
I don’t know if that makes sense or not…
LikeLike
“Reassigning meaning to something else to make up for the loss is in essence conceding that meaning is illusory and transient.”
no more than stubbornly holding on to only one grand meaning through a relationship” that is only imagined.
I can have just a much of a relationship with Anne Frank as anyone can with god – the biggest difference being that Anne actually wrote her own book.
LikeLike
Hey Josh,
Some say their meaning is to be a good parent. What happens if, God forbid, you child dies? Your meaning is gone. Do you then assign meaning to something else? Your job? What if you lose it? A support group for grieving parents? What if it never gets going or fizzles out? I’m taking the conversation to extreme conclusions because the reality is many, many people face those extreme conclusions.
I see your point here, but even many Christians who lose those things which are precious to them feel “lost” or have to find a substitute to fill the void. They will say the Jesus fills this void but it’s nearly impossible to fill a hole left by a visible, live, and interactive meaningful person or thing with something invisible and elusive.
So my response would be that one’s life probably shouldn’t have just one meaning. People, including Christians, are not very well-rounded and at risk for meaninglessness when they become too one-dimensional.
LikeLike
Josh,
Stay away from guns and knives please! 😉 Seriously though, I think you are mixing a few things together, so let’s work together and solve it:
1) First your argument was that there could not be any meaning in life: I say it depends on your definition of meaning. I agree that with pure naturalism (which I am agnostic about, but will assume it for the argument) there is no cosmic and no ultimate meaning. We are agreed on this point.
2) Could there be temporal meaning? You haven’t totally answered this. We’ve given several examples of where the word “meaning” is used in rational ways and is not tied to cosmic or ultimate meaning. Do you disagree here? From your responses I think you actually agree with us, but where you disagree is on my next point:
3) Without ultimate and cosmic meaning we may as well kill ourselves. I’m talking in extremes here but this is essentially the gist of your argument. My answer to this is that it is dependent on the person’s perspective. If absolutely every single waking second of a person’s live is entirely shitty then I could see how a person like this wouldn’t want to live. But as Nate has mentioned even people who have tragedies in life and decide to continue on end up finding other reasons to continue living and end up feeling all the better for it. This is simply about personal perspective and personal desires and you’re argument is not really proving that we are being irrational it is just proving that you have different desires than we do (actually I’d bet your desires aren’t as different as you think, and that you’d continue on even if your worldview changed). You have a desire to have ultimate meaning otherwise life doesn’t seem desirable to you, and we have realized that even without ultimate meaning we still have a desire to continue living and enjoying the beautiful things in the lives we have here – probably the only conscious moments we will have.
LikeLike
…and if you live for god and then when you die… nothing?
you wouldnt be alive to realize it, but that would mean your entire life was for a false purpose – how is that better that living for your kids and then finding something else to live for if they died?
I dont think purpose is just one thing – even for the believer. How many believers only read their bibles, only go to church and only pray in their down time? believers are people too, they live for their god but they also live for their families and friends and even for themselves.
LikeLike
Oh absolutely, Powell – Josh IS a nice guy, and he doesn’t have to agree with me on religion, for me to consider him so. I’ve just perceived what I believe has been a personality change over the past year, and was really mentioning it to see if it was my imagination, or if anyone else noticed it too. True, I could have addressed Josh, but often we don’t notice changes when they’re happening to us. Actually, I was, more than anything, concerned to know if everything was OK, or if anything unpleasant had happened to him. He disappeared for a time, then reappeared – which is not uncommon (still looking for CaptainCatholic!) – so I was curious about the interval.
LikeLike
“In other words, just because my comment will not last forever does not mean it has no meaning right now.” – actually, Dave, I was in a discussion the other day, and it’s kinda spooky to think about, but these comments of our will still be out there somewhere, long after we’re gone – unless of course someone decides to discontinue the internet, but with that Pandora’s box open, I don’t see it closing again.
“Life can seem rather pointless if we focus on our possible extinction millions or billions of years from now.” – sad to contemplate, but I don’t think we’re due to last anywhere nearly that long, unless we get over the idea, collectively, that we own the Earth – we only lease it from our descendants. When Earth has had enough of us, it will let us know in no uncertain terms.
LikeLike
My greatest concern, Josh, was not that you disagree with any of us here, it’s whether or not you’re OK – if you are, then great, let’s
arguedebate!“Reassigning meaning to something else to make up for the loss is in essence conceding that meaning is illusory and transient. That is, without any higher meaning that, for the sake of argument, never goes away.”
I had a dog once, and later, I also had a cat. Both were gifts from people I cared about, and yes, I did attach a great deal of meaning to them. When, after many years, they died, I never had another dog or cat – those animals, though now gone, live on in my memories of them, and still have meaning and always will as long as I have those memories. Meaning isn’t necessarily transient nor temporary unless we choose it to be – there are many things, as well as ideas and philosophies, that once meant a great deal to me, but as I grew, I set them aside, so in that sense, I suppose that yes, they were transient.
Assuming you’re heterosexual, surely you’ve fallen out of love with a girl, at least once in your life, and possibly even found yourself wondering what you ever saw in her. Meaning IS transient, in the sense that our priorities are often fluid, subject to change, and I’m OK with that – in my mind, it’s part of the growth process. Belief in an invisible entity that dispenses ultimate justice simply doesn’t afford me the security that it seems to provide for you – THAT, for me, is illusory – I prefer to attach meaning to something more tangible, however temporary.
The only actual meaning that any living creature, plant or animal, has, is to survive and propagate – anything more, we must find for ourselves. But considering the art, the music, the literature, the scientific discoveries that Humankind has achieved, I’d say we’re pretty good at that.
LikeLike
Arch-
I totally appreciate your concern, and thank you very much for it 🙂
I’m not trying to be obstinate. I just had to jump into this conversation because this is something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. *I am not suicidal, nor am I condoning that anyone take their life or that of another 🙂 I just think that assigning meaning to things in our lives is just as illusory as many claim my belief in God is. I hear what you all are saying – children and pets and jobs are “real” – if people assign meaning to them at least that meaning has a tangible object. However, I have many reasons to believe in God (though, I know those don’t wash around here) and to assign meaning to Him and to following Him as the purpose for my life. I may be wrong. The flip side, though, is that the meaning that is applied to things in this life we know for certain won’t last. It ends either when we lose that thing, or when we die. In time, it will be forgotten and have served no particular purpose. Anyway, I don’t want to drag this out. I also don’t want to keep worrying people that I’m going to swan dive off the nearest building 🙂 I surely am not. This is just something that I have thought a lot about, and I think there’s a disconnect between criticism of applying meaning and purpose to God and communicating about Him, when that person also applies meaning to transient things that ultimately will have no meaning or purpose. It looks to me, if I look at it from an atheistic/naturalistic perspective, like the same thing. Therefore, the criticism is unwarranted. Both provide meaning and purpose. Both lead individuals to favor certain actions and people over others. I haven’t heard or read anything to persuade me they are different.
I’m sure that’s still somewhat unclear.
LikeLike
…and I think there’s a disconnect between criticism of applying meaning and purpose to God and communicating about Him, when that person also applies meaning to transient things that ultimately will have no meaning or purpose.
Actually, I think I get what you’re saying here. We are all entitled to assign meaning to whatever we want. I think, though, that this is a criticism of a criticism. What I mean by that is that the WLC’s of the world seem to think that there can be no purpose apart from their God thereby criticizing the claim to the contrary. And those of us who don’t believe in a god or gods take a bit of exception to that and say that absolutely our lives can have meaning and purpose. So we’re not criticizing anyone for assigning purpose to God, per se. We’re criticizing the notion that apart from God there can’t be purpose. It may seem a small distinction but certainly not one which is insignificant.
LikeLike
Josh, this latest comment seems ok to me – if you find meaning and joy in something that possibly doesn’t exist I think that’s fine. There could be caveats to all that, but I want to remain a bit focused. Can you explain exactly what I’ve said in my comments that is irrational? Because I’d like to adjust if anything is. The definition I am using of “meaning” when it relates to life is giving a reason to continue living. I don’t think it’s irrational to claim that there are things in my life that cause me to want to continue living. I think you just have a different definition of meaning than I do in this discussion.
LikeLike
Ruth-
I don’t think it’s a small distinction. I’d just say, apart from God there is no lasting or ultimate purpose. I obviously don’t think that necessarily drives people to feel they need to end their lives. I just think it is a stark concept if you step back and think about it. It leads me, at least, to think about how hard it would be for me to accept that there truly is no meaning beyond what I give to the things in my life.
LikeLike
Howie-
I think the way you define meaning is different than the way I was defining it. I don’t see a problem with you saying what you said. See my previous comment to Ruth about the way I was defining meaning, and how that impacts how I would see the world if I truly believed there wasn’t ultimate purpose. That is all. 🙂 Thanks for clarifying the semantics – I do think that’s important.
LikeLike
Ok Josh, I’m cool with that. I don’t usually do this, and I especially don’t want to now because you are one of the coolest theists I know, but you threw some harsh words at us so I’m gonna throw them back at you. You said this yesterday:
Then after reading several of our responses where at least 2 of us were very clear that our definitions of the word meaning were different than yours, you said:
I took this to mean that our responses were irrational. I’m taking your latest response as conceding that you really don’t have a claim that we are irrational just that we have different perspectives, desires and needs.
Please don’t take my comment as an attack – you’re one of the few theists online that I’d love to have a beer with.
LikeLike
Howie-
I don’t take it as an attack. My comments yesterday were about a philosophical point. What I am conceding now is that people can apply meaning to things, and that provides them with a sense of purpose in life. I wouldn’t argue that. In, fact that was my original point. However, I do think it covers up the deeper reality that there really isn’t any reason to continue living the life we live without ultimate purpose. It’s like Sisyphus – we continue to push the rock up the hill even though we “know” that, at the end of the “day” the rock is just going to roll back down the hill. No progress will have been made. I think, from a larger picture perspective, this can’t be argued. Only from a personal, subjective perspective can we claim otherwise. I know people disagree, and I’ve read the responses and I don’t think they wash. And, I’m only saying it because there doesn’t seem to be any way around it from my perspective. We apply meaning in order to have a reason to go on in life. That’s fine, and I wouldn’t want to intentionally urge someone to give this up. However, for the sake of overarching philosophical conversation, the meaning we apply to things is subjective, transient, and ultimately serves no purpose. All it does is make us feel better.
So, I think there are two discussions. One in which I think you are right about dealing with the semantics. There, I can concede your points. However, on a larger scale I wouldn’t concede those same points.
LikeLike
“It’s like Sisyphus – we continue to push the rock up the hill even though we ‘know’ that, at the end of the ‘day’ the rock is just going to roll back down the hill. No progress will have been made.”
I know this will seem like I’m trying to be funny, but in truth, I’m just trying to show how it’s possible to see things through different perspectives. We can’t know the mind of Sisyphus – he may well attach meaning to the act of moving rocks, or even to how WELL he can move one, seeking to improve his efficiency with each subsequent move – it could well be that at the end of the day, he feels that he GETS to do it all over again, not that he HAS to.
LikeLike
Josh – yeah, I don’t disagree with you there. It’s very important to me that I’m not disingenuous – it’s just something I take a bit of pride in. I know I’m irrational and say irrational things all the time and want to be corrected, and I’m sure I’m disingenuous at times also, but disingenuous really isn’t something I want to be. So I’m looking for clear correction from you on my stuff if you think it’s wrong and I really would adjust if it sounds correct.
So yes, I’d actually agree with you that from a philosophical perspective, if strict naturalism really is true then, external of conscious living beings, there is no reason to continue living.
But the difference though is that we all do agree that there are conscious living beings, I am one of them, and I know of others that are close to me. I have my own reasons why I want to continue living, and I know there are others who love me that also want me to continue living. So there are reasons both within me and external of me, but outside of that I agree with you. For me those are more than enough reasons, but I understand that everyone is different and that there are others who have this need for more.
LikeLike
I’m trying to understand the two different definitions being used for meaning and purpose.
On the one hand we have “Why should I continue to live?”. This would be a question for all conscious beings that have a choice to end their existence. An eternal deity would wonder “Why should I continue to exist?”
On the other hand we have “What am I for? What is my role or function?” This is where the atheists and agnostics say “to survive” or “I have no ultimate role in the cosmos” or “I create my own role or function” and the Christians say “to worship and glorify my creator forever”. I’m not sure what an eternal deity would answer when posed this question.
Am I on the right track, Josh? Is it the second version here that you are talking about?
LikeLike
“external of conscious living beings, there is no reason to continue living.” – but consider this also, Howie – external of conscious living beings, there is no place for a god to dwell.
LikeLike
Arch, is your point that he is defined as a conscious living being also?
Maybe that relates to Nate and Dave’s point that given that god is defined as a conscious living being he would also suffer from the same question we are asking ourselves – what is his purpose/meaning beyond himself? I think the theist response is that God by definition has purpose in his nature. I’m not really sure what that would even mean, so I steer a little clear of that discussion.
LikeLike
My point is that ALL gods live only in the minds of humans.
LikeLike
Ah yes Arch, I should have caught that.
LikeLike
I think the theist response is that God by definition has purpose in his nature
Yeah, it’s to be entertained with the drama humans are living out.
Wouldn’t He be so bored without us?
Take a look at the Old Testament — it’s drama, after drama, after drama. He didn’t know whether or not He could trust Abraham until Abraham started to cut up his teen son for sacrifice. He didn’t foresee that Saul would be a putz until he was and then reacted with violent anger (if you’re going to set the stage for drama, you should keep your cool — it isn’t like you can’t expect people to fail when you’ve set them up to do so).
And there’s nothing like the drama of a divorce: God had it with Israel (I wouldn’t want to be married to her) — He seems to have had unreasonable expectations, particularly since He never gave them the Holy Spirit, they had no faith and were doomed to fail before they ever started.
Drama, drama, drama.
I could go on, but you can probably come up with more on your own (I’ve only read the Bible 7 times, for heaven’s sake — some of you have more background than I do).
So, yes, it does look as if God has a purpose in His nature — at least the Old Testament God (the bipolar transformation of which has a great deal of fascination): Sort of a kid with ants playing with a magnifying glass.
Of course, then we have Jesus who said very clearly that if you only ask the Father in his name, it would be granted. There are caveats, of course — I mean, you can’t bow down to graven images, for heaven’s sake, or take His Name in vain (there are lots of other rules), but the promise stands.
Now for you Christians in good standing, how’s that working out for you? Is it like the movie, “God Isn’t Dead” where you’re dying of cancer, but it’s OK because you just feel that Jesus loves you? You’re going to die anyway, but the dopamine levels are elevated because you anticipate heaven and the love of Jesus so much that you don’t feel the pain? Or you get a high from the Chri$tian Mu$ic with those guys with long hair who should know that it a shame because the Apostle Paul said so? And what’s with the being unequally yoked committing fornication? Is that OK? Anyway, is God answering all your prayers because you ask in Jesus’ name (a ‘NO!’ answer doesn’t count, sorry).
And maybe that’s it. Maybe God’s purpose is to teach people how to increase their dopamine levels so they won’t have so much pain.
It’s a gift.
LikeLike
so true, BOM,
god is the original drama queen,
he’s such a fag.
LikeLike
Well, I just don’t know about that, but it is interesting that Christian guys are supposed to be the bride of Christ. I suspect that heterosexual Christian men don’t think about that much: To be a man member of Jesus’ harem.
I wonder how that works.
Is it going to be like the Book of Esther where a guy will be picked out one night and another another night? Will you have to wait a long time before joining Jesus in bed for all eternity.
I’m not being blasphemous here. After all, the Bible does say rather explicitly ‘bride of Christ’.
You know, enquiring minds want to know.
And maybe some guys are uncomfortable with that, but it is what it is, if it is.
LikeLike