God and the Meaningful Life

[spetey]

Hi again DC&R debaters, I have another puzzler for you. I think it's an important one to consider.

In my experience, many people say they believe in God because God gives their lives meaning. This reason to believe involves two important claims that should be separated:

1. If God did not exist, life would not have sufficient "meaning".
2. This previous claim, if true, is itself reason to believe that God does exist.

(I should make it clear I mean, here, the traditional God of Abraham--the God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims--the one who gave Moses the 10 Commandments, and sent the flood, and who Christians think sent Jesus to die for our sins, etc.)

I think both of these claims are false. That is:

1. I think that life has plenty of "meaning" even though I think there is no God. For example: I still think the world is beautiful, that there is reason to be good to other people, that there is often reason for awe and humility in the face of nature, that life is a precious thing, and so on. In fact, I often think a life with a God would have less meaning, just as I think an adult life spent living with your parents has less "meaning" than when you strike out on your own.
2. Even if it were true that life would not have sufficient meaning without God, I don't think that would itself be reason to believe that there is a God. Compare this: even if it were true that without $1 million I can never be happy, I still don't think that alone is reason to think I have $1 million. That is, even if I really do need $1m to be happy (something I doubt), maybe the truth is I just don't have enough money to be happy. To believe I have that money just because I need it is to commit the wishful thinking fallacy.

Now I should say, I do think there are lots of good things that belief in God can do for people. For example, off the top of my head:

• It can bring people together in a community, for contemplation, celebration, and grieving.
• It can get people thinking about ethical issues.
• It can get people thinking about spiritual issues.
• It can encourage calm reflection and meditation.

But I think all of these can be had without belief in God. You could go, for example, to a Unitarian Universalist Church, where belief in God is not required, but where people think morally, reflect spiritually, grieve and celebrate, and so on.

Meanwhile I think belief in God encourages some very bad things:

• For many, it encourages faith--which is just belief without reason, and which many seem to agree is irresponsible (as in this thread).
• In particular, such faith appeals lead to impasses and intolerance when encountering cultures that disagree. As we have seen throughout history, this is a common cause for war and terrorism and the like.
• Belief in a non-material intelligence promotes a kind of magical, non-scientific thinking.
• It historically has promoted, and continues to promote, confused ethical values based solely on particular leaders' readings of "what the Sacred Text says".
• It has hindered, and continues to hinder, the progress of science (by resisting the Copernican revolution, or evolutionary theory...).

...and so on.

Well, that's plenty to start discussion. What do you think? Is life meaningless without God? Even if so, would this alone be reason to believe that God does exist?


spetey

[DanMRaymond]

Without the idea of religion life has no ultimate value in my eyes. Sure, I enjoy life, but I don't believe in the afterlife so what am I living for? Nothing. I believe that when I die there will be nothingness. If people didn't have such a hard time grasping this concept, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[QED]

Without the idea of religion life has no ultimate value in my eyes. Sure, I enjoy life, but I don't believe in the afterlife so what am I living for? Nothing. I believe that when I die there will be nothingness. If people didn't have such a hard time grasping this concept, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

This Afterlife that people seem so keen on seems problematic to me anyway. We need to have experiences away from equilibrium in order to feel anything. An eternity of equilibrium is tantamount to my concept of death, which while I do not look forward to it, I know it to be inevitable hence not worth fretting about. This keeps me motivated to make the most of my life and to wish longevity to all other life.

[DanMRaymond]

Exactly, we have to live now. We should spend our time making progress in life.

[harvey1]

Corvus wrote here:

Events only carry subjective meanings. If I point to a cow and say "food", that's a meaning and purpose created for the cow. If the cow understood what I meant, it would be horrified, because, being alive, it values its own life, and what carries a meaning of a pleasurable meal for me is, for the cow, something exceedingly horrible.... Of course; that intrinsic value is a zero, just like a canvas is blank until you start painting on it.... Why shouldn't it? And why have you introduced maths for a purely linguistic problem? The very fact that we have dictionaries means that we can create meanings, and poetry uses words that have multiple meanings in a given context. I can't see how you can deny that meaning is not something in the mind of the beholder. "What does that mean" in everyday speech means "what does that convey to you or to people", doesn't it? Language itself is an example of meaning applied to particular vibrations of one's glottis, or some scribbles on a page. It's purely a matter of what a thing represents to you. Art is meaning applied by the artist onto an arrangment of paint that resonates with human experience, but, of course, sometimes the artist doesn't do a very good job of expressing his meaning, and another observer arrives at a different one.

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake

I'm certainly not against the notion of pragmatic meaning (either semantic or epistemic). What I'm talking about though, is something entirely different. Let me give you an analogy since this might help.

Let's say that you take a trip to Las Vegas with your friend that was born yesterday (call her BY). Now, prior to landing in Vegas you decide to have a little fun with BY. You tell her that you are going to a place where the pull levers on machines, and that everytime you put money in the machine (a slot machine), the machine is smart enough to know if you are thinking a good thought, and if it senses good thoughts, it will give you money. If it doesn't sense a good thought, it takes your money. BY at first is rather confused, but after some effort, she noticed a good thought every once and a while pays, so she tries to hone in on the good thoughts that won her money. After a while though, she comes to you and says that she mustn't know what a good thought is, because she keeps thinking good thoughts and sometimes it pays, but many times the machine ignores her good thoughts. You, still having fun, tell her that's because she must look deeper into her thoughts, and that it takes some people many hours to come up with good thoughts.

Now, outside of the unethical behavior by you to bring BY to Vegas and put her though so much ordeal, this demonstrates why the atheist view of the world is meaningless. You see, BY's thoughts are meaningless with regard to the real nature of winning and losing. It really doesn't matter what BY is thinking, it won't change the outcome of her wins and losses at the slots. The slot machine doesn't care what BY thinks, it is just going about it's random thing of awarding winners and losers based on some random function.

Similarly, an atheist conception is no different. We can have any kind of meaningful experience in life all that we want, but in reality, it's just like BY's effort to generate good thoughts when pulling the lever. Those meaningful efforts by BY are meaningless. So are our "meaningful" lives. There is nothing meaningful about our lives. They are just random blips or random events of a slot machine. We can make whatever make believe we want of those events (or of our good thoughts), but it doesn't matter.

Events only carry subjective meanings. If I point to a cow and say "food", that's a meaning and purpose created for the cow. If the cow understood what I meant, it would be horrified, because, being alive, it values its own life, and what carries a meaning of a pleasurable meal for me is, for the cow, something exceedingly horrible.

Of course events are subjective, however do you really believe there are no facts of matter in the world? Is it not a fact that you are reading this as you are reading this? Is it not a fact that 2+2=4 in elementary arithmetic? Is it not a fact that certain actions harm others? Everything that happens is based on a fact of matter. Events either happen for a reason, or they just randomly happen. If they just happen and there is no ultimate reason why those things happen (i.e., they just do), then there is no meaning to those events. This is what in fact atheism reduces to.

In case of the cow, there is an ultimate reason why those things happen, and if there is a God, then there is meaning to all the events in the universe.

[Corvus]

Corvus wrote here:

Events only carry subjective meanings. If I point to a cow and say "food", that's a meaning and purpose created for the cow. If the cow understood what I meant, it would be horrified, because, being alive, it values its own life, and what carries a meaning of a pleasurable meal for me is, for the cow, something exceedingly horrible.... Of course; that intrinsic value is a zero, just like a canvas is blank until you start painting on it.... Why shouldn't it? And why have you introduced maths for a purely linguistic problem? The very fact that we have dictionaries means that we can create meanings, and poetry uses words that have multiple meanings in a given context. I can't see how you can deny that meaning is not something in the mind of the beholder. "What does that mean" in everyday speech means "what does that convey to you or to people", doesn't it? Language itself is an example of meaning applied to particular vibrations of one's glottis, or some scribbles on a page. It's purely a matter of what a thing represents to you. Art is meaning applied by the artist onto an arrangment of paint that resonates with human experience, but, of course, sometimes the artist doesn't do a very good job of expressing his meaning, and another observer arrives at a different one.

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake

I'm certainly not against the notion of pragmatic meaning (either semantic or epistemic). What I'm talking about though, is something entirely different. Let me give you an analogy since this might help.

Let's say that you take a trip to Las Vegas with your friend that was born yesterday (call her BY). Now, prior to landing in Vegas you decide to have a little fun with BY. You tell her that you are going to a place where the pull levers on machines, and that everytime you put money in the machine (a slot machine), the machine is smart enough to know if you are thinking a good thought, and if it senses good thoughts, it will give you money. If it doesn't sense a good thought, it takes your money. BY at first is rather confused, but after some effort, she noticed a good thought every once and a while pays, so she tries to hone in on the good thoughts that won her money. After a while though, she comes to you and says that she mustn't know what a good thought is, because she keeps thinking good thoughts and sometimes it pays, but many times the machine ignores her good thoughts. You, still having fun, tell her that's because she must look deeper into her thoughts, and that it takes some people many hours to come up with good thoughts.

Now, outside of the unethical behavior by you to bring BY to Vegas and put her though so much ordeal, this demonstrates why the atheist view of the world is meaningless. You see, BY's thoughts are meaningless with regard to the real nature of winning and losing. It really doesn't matter what BY is thinking, it won't change the outcome of her wins and losses at the slots. The slot machine doesn't care what BY thinks, it is just going about it's random thing of awarding winners and losers based on some random function.

I have some objections to the example because I believe it's more complicated than it should be, nor does it explain the nature of reality very well. If we are to understand that the slot machines are life, then in the example, I, deluding my friend BY, would still be gallavanting around a world of randomness, even though I'm better informed as to how the machines function. Or do I not play at the slot machines because I'm better informed than BY?

Let me see if I understood the example; atheists are purblind individuals going through motions that will ultimately have no significance except to themselves. If this isn't what you mean, feel free to correct me.

Similarly, an atheist conception is no different. We can have any kind of meaningful experience in life all that we want, but in reality, it's just like BY's effort to generate good thoughts when pulling the lever. Those meaningful efforts by BY are meaningless. So are our "meaningful" lives. There is nothing meaningful about our lives. They are just random blips or random events of a slot machine. We can make whatever make believe we want of those events (or of our good thoughts), but it doesn't matter.

I would say it does matter to the only person it should matter to; ourselves. In reality, our present reality is all we know. What you are asking is for us to conform to a purpose for which we were created for and recognise the purpose of everything around us as being set towards someone else's goal. I'm sorry, but I don't have to do either. Things are created for a purpose, not with a purpose. That a thing is created for a purpose doesn't mean the purpose for which it is created is better or more significant than anything we can envision ourselves. Purposes means; "what a thing is valued for", and a value is only ever in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as an objective value.

Events only carry subjective meanings. If I point to a cow and say "food", that's a meaning and purpose created for the cow. If the cow understood what I meant, it would be horrified, because, being alive, it values its own life, and what carries a meaning of a pleasurable meal for me is, for the cow, something exceedingly horrible.

Of course events are subjective, however do you really believe there are no facts of matter in the world? Is it not a fact that you are reading this as you are reading this? Is it not a fact that 2+2=4 in elementary arithmetic? Is it not a fact that certain actions harm others? Everything that happens is based on a fact of matter. Events either happen for a reason, or they just randomly happen. If they just happen and there is no ultimate reason why those things happen (i.e., they just do), then there is no meaning to those events. This is what in fact atheism reduces to.

What I object to is the language you are using. Calling atheism meaningless brings to one's mind images of clowns with hammers. What I think you mean by "meaning" is "purpose". I agree those events are inherently purposeless - at least for most atheists. But if a god exists, those events are still inherently purposeless, only they are given significance purely because they correspond to the results he desires.

I suppose you could counter that everything must have a reason for existing (though not an inherent one), but I don't think this is in any way demonstrable. And, if true, what then would the purpose of God be?

In case of the cow, there is an ultimate reason why those things happen, and if there is a God, then there is meaning to all the events in the universe.

Yes, I can see that there is a reason for all events in the universe if we believe in God, but this is significant to only one person; God.

Things can be created for a purpose, and this makes that thing suited to a particular task, but I don't think it bestows a purpose or reason into the object created, only that the object created represents to you(or to another creature) something purposeful for a particular task.

[harvey1]

Let me see if I understood the example; atheists are purblind individuals going through motions that will ultimately have no significance except to themselves. If this isn't what you mean, feel free to correct me.

No. According to the atheist conceptual scheme, the world is ultimately meaningless. My contention is that if the world is ultimately meaningless, then the world cannot in principle possess real meaning. Subjective meaning is no different than BY's attempt to gain meaning and insight from the thoughts she holds while holding down the lever of a slot machine.

I would say it does matter to the only person it should matter to; ourselves. In reality, our present reality is all we know. What you are asking is for us to conform to a purpose for which we were created for and recognise the purpose of everything around us as being set towards someone else's goal. I'm sorry, but I don't have to do either. Things are created for a purpose, not with a purpose. That a thing is created for a purpose doesn't mean the purpose for which it is created is better or more significant than anything we can envision ourselves. Purposes means; "what a thing is valued for", and a value is only ever in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as an objective value.

Pragmatic meaning is of a "subjective value" nature, however that does not imply that meaning does not exist or that subjective value is not ultimately based on objective meaning. For example, the value of the Avogadro number might not be subjectively valuable to Neandertals, and certainly it doesn't have to have any purpose, but the Avogadro number is meaningful since it expresses a relation that exists in the universe. Humans don't necessarily give meaning to the physical constant, rather the meaning is there to discover about the universe. Don't get me wrong, the Avogadro number is pragmatically meaningful for human science, but it is only pragmatically meaningful because we can exploit a relation that exists in the world. This unlike BY who is not exploiting a relation that exists between good thoughts and earnings from a slot machine because no such meaningful relation exists.

What I object to is the language you are using. Calling atheism meaningless brings to one's mind images of clowns with hammers. What I think you mean by "meaning" is "purpose". I agree those events are inherently purposeless - at least for most atheists. But if a god exists, those events are still inherently purposeless, only they are given significance purely because they correspond to the results he desires.

No, I do not equate meaning with purpose. Meaning is better equated with information. Information may have a purpose (e.g., to convey it to someone else so they are better informed), but information doesn't need to have a purpose. It only must have meaning. That is, meaning is a relation that exists between bits (or qubits, or some other representation, etc) of "data" and the understanding conveyed by those bits of data. If there is no relation between data and understanding, that is no theory, then there is no information content. If there is no information content in data, then the data is random (maximum entropy).

When atheism comes along and says that there is no God, what they are in fact saying is that there is nothing to comprehend about the universe other than its brute fact existence. In other words, it's a meaningless world since there's no relation between the universe (bits of "data") and the understanding conveyed by there being a universe. It's true that this is a "purpose," but there is a slight difference. Purpose implies a before and after, whereas the theist is saying that before there was a universe, the World still had meaning. In other words, meaning comes with there being a God since the relation of meaning exists even if there were materially nothing at all.

I suppose you could counter that everything must have a reason for existing (though not an inherent one), but I don't think this is in any way demonstrable. And, if true, what then would the purpose of God be?

I think God has a purpose. For example, one purpose of God might be to know truth and decide what is true. I suspect the universe is one such means for God to establish this.

Yes, I can see that there is a reason for all events in the universe if we believe in God, but this is significant to only one person; God.

No. All the ultimate meaning in the world reduces to all the subjective meaning we find in the universe (whether by our mistake or without our knowledge).

Things can be created for a purpose, and this makes that thing suited to a particular task, but I don't think it bestows a purpose or reason into the object created, only that the object created represents to you(or to another creature) something purposeful for a particular task.

You are looking at meaning far from the Source. Yes, as we move further and further away from the Source, the information of that Source takes on noise, and this noise distorts the meaning of the information, and hence, we come to the point to where the information is interpreted to be what it is based on its own subjective value. However, humans put forth a good effort to try and find out what the information is by trying to filter out the noise. This is what science attempts to do, for example. By looking at the universe using formal protocols (called the "scientific method") it tries to see what the universe is really like without human preconceptions getting in the way. So, we are in fact learning to decode the information in the universe. In this way, the universe takes on certain real meaning since much of the noise that hindered that meaning is being filtered away. This is perhaps why so many find science so meaningful because it effectively strips away "noise" that comes from falsely held notions.

[spetey]

Hey folks! I'm back for a bit anyway.

Now, outside of the unethical behavior by you to bring BY to Vegas and put her though so much ordeal, this demonstrates why the atheist view of the world is meaningless. You see, BY's thoughts are meaningless with regard to the real nature of winning and losing.

How does this demonstrate that the atheist's view is meaningless? You stipulate an example where someone has a false belief about the causal efficacy of good thoughts. This is a good example of a false belief, perhaps, and of course you think it's similar to atheism in that you think atheism also requires false beliefs. But here you merely state that atheism is like such a false belief about slot machines. I know you (and many others) think that atheism is meaningless--I want to know why.

Events either happen for a reason, or they just randomly happen. If they just happen and there is no ultimate reason why those things happen (i.e., they just do), then there is no meaning to those events. This is what in fact atheism reduces to.

Why? It sure seems like atheism leaves room for the possibility that things happen for a reason. For example, suppose I help someone recover from an injury. I do it for the reason that I think suffering is bad and should be relieved; this belief helps explain my actions. Similarly I think the reason a rock rolls down a hill has to do with gravity and the like. Why can't I believe such things and be an atheist? It seems you really want to say that atheists can't say that events have good or meaningful reasons. But that just begs the question. I think that helping someone recover from injury is a meaningful activity.

Calling atheism meaningless brings to one's mind images of clowns with hammers.

No. According to the atheist conceptual scheme, the world is ultimately meaningless.

Again you state this. Please support this contention with reasoning. In the opener to this thread I have given some reason to suggest that life can be meaningful even without any God.

My contention is that if the world is ultimately meaningless, then the world cannot in principle possess real meaning.

I grant this tautology, of course! Now: can you contend that the world is ultimately meaningless if there is no God?

No, I do not equate meaning with purpose. Meaning is better equated with information.

This is equivocation. When you claim that the atheist picture is "meaningless", you don't mean to say that we fail to convey any information at all when we say "there is no God", do you? After all, you (often) seem to understand what we mean by our words. The atheist picture has meaning in the sense of semantic meaning, it seems rather obviously. When you accuse atheism of not having any meaning, you intend the sense of worthwhile significance, or (a good approximation suggested by Corvus and others) purpose. But this is what we would like to hear more about. Why is life insignificant without a God?


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello Spetey,

Too bad we don't see you as much as before. It's nice having time to debate others, but it seems like you're not here enough...

can you contend that the world is ultimately meaningless if there is no God?

We have to go all the way back to a beginning. Theists believe that a beginning started with God, and with God existing, everything came into being. Atheists believe that a beginning started with a universe (or meta-universe), and everything that happens in the world is a result of that particular brute fact. An atheist cannot offer an explanation for the universe (or meta-universe) since to offer an explanation would be to refer to something that cannot be described by a formal unity which is a key attribute of atheism (which we discussed already). The atheist asks that we accept something as brute fact, and this brute fact is the (meta)universe itself. There are many conceivable (meta)universes, but only one is brute fact which has no explanation (i.e., it is random).

Randomness is meaningless since the information content of a random brute fact is zero. That is, there is nothing to understand about its behavior that is a shorter description of that behavior other than just describing the behavior itself. This is what I mean by ultimately meaningless since there is no relation that connects the behavior/description of the metauniverse with a deeper understanding of that behavior/description. It expresses a formal unity.

But here you merely state that atheism is like such a false belief about slot machines. I know you (and many others) think that atheism is meaningless--I want to know why... It sure seems like atheism leaves room for the possibility that things happen for a reason....

In our universe, I think atheism would require that things happen for a "reason" in a pragmatic sense, but the logic of these events are just rough approximations of the behavior of the metauniverse as it occurs in our little corner of the metauniverse. The real underlying machinery of the universe is without reason and without meaning.

It seems you really want to say that atheists can't say that events have good or meaningful reasons. But that just begs the question. I think that helping someone recover from injury is a meaningful activity...

Yes, I know that you think this, but this is just being inconsistent with your atheism. Although, I'm certainly glad for society that most atheists are nice and loving people, I am also aware that if they thought consistently with their atheism, they would realize that they could do anything they think benefitted them without consideration to others on how those actions harmed others. In the atheist conception, being consistent means realizing that there is no meaning to the world and that meaning is only what you wish to invent. Like BY, an atheist could invent to have a good thought with the pull of a lever, but they could also decide not to too. The freedom is their's to make. They should make it under the understanding that all events are fundamentally meaningless and without cause, and that there is no benefit to them in many situations when it comes to helping others. More than likely, they are still operating under the old system rules of theism where everything has meaning including incidental events such as helping an old lady cross the street. An atheist could just as well push the old lady out of their way, and as long as there's not a price to pay for them, they have not brought the world any less meaning or anymore meaninglessness. The world is all-inclusively meaningless, so all that would matter is how an atheist wanted to incorporate that sense of meaninglessness into their lives.

No, I do not equate meaning with purpose. Meaning is better equated with information.

This is equivocation. When you claim that the atheist picture is "meaningless", you don't mean to say that we fail to convey any information at all when we say "there is no God", do you?

No, I mean to say that you convey that the metauniverse does not have any information content. It is what it is. Random data.

After all, you (often) seem to understand what we mean by our words. The atheist picture has meaning in the sense of semantic meaning, it seems rather obviously.

Yes, it has semantic meaning, but that's because the atheist scheme is in fact wrong. Had atheism been right, we wouldn't be here to contemplate these issues. Lucky for us.

When you accuse atheism of not having any meaning, you intend the sense of worthwhile significance, or (a good approximation suggested by Corvus and others) purpose. But this is what we would like to hear more about. Why is life insignificant without a God?

Life is insignificant without a God because of reduction. The ultimate state of the metauniverse, a total meaningless state, requires that we see every event as reverberations of that initial meaninglessness. It's like a sea of meaninglessness that moves in waves across the span of time.

[Dilettante]

harvey1 wrote:

Although, I'm certainly glad for society that most atheists are nice and loving people, I am also aware that if they thought consistently with their atheism, they would realize that they could do anything they think benefitted them without consideration to others on how those actions harmed others. In the atheist conception, being consistent means realizing that there is no meaning to the world and that meaning is only what you wish to invent. Like BY, an atheist could invent to have a good thought with the pull of a lever, but they could also decide not to too. The freedom is their's to make. They should make it under the understanding that all events are fundamentally meaningless and without cause, and that there is no benefit to them in many situations when it comes to helping others. More than likely, they are still operating under the old system rules of theism where everything has meaning including incidental events such as helping an old lady cross the street. An atheist could just as well push the old lady out of their way, and as long as there's not a price to pay for them, they have not brought the world any less meaning or anymore meaninglessness.

I still don't understand why you conclude that a consistent atheist would have to be an evil, selfish monster. You are perhaps conflating "grand", eternal meaning with worldly meaning. An atheist is just as human as a theist, also lives in a society with moral rules, and is perfectly capable of having ethical principles as well. It makes perfect sense to help an old lady across the street for an atheist (or at least to not push her) because that's socially helpful behavior. Nobody that I know wants to live in a society without rules or guidelines. If atheists "consistently" adopted an "anything goes" mentality, they would destabilize the very social fabric that sustains them. To persevere in being, they know they have to contribute to the success of their society. It makes sense for atheists to be virtuous in this life. Whatever happens in the next life, if there is one, is another matter. Even without "eternal meaningfulness", there's meaning in the here-and-now.

[perplexed101]

I still don't understand why you conclude that a consistent atheist would have to be an evil, selfish monster. You are perhaps conflating "grand", eternal meaning with worldly meaning. An atheist is just as human as a theist, also lives in a society with moral rules, and is perfectly capable of having ethical principles as well. It makes perfect sense to help an old lady across the street for an atheist (or at least to not push her) because that's socially helpful behavior. Nobody that I know wants to live in a society without rules or guidelines. If atheists "consistently" adopted an "anything goes" mentality, they would destabilize the very social fabric that sustains them. To persevere in being, they know they have to contribute to the success of their society. It makes sense for atheists to be virtuous in this life. Whatever happens in the next life, if there is one, is another matter. Even without "eternal meaningfulness", there's meaning in the here-and-now.

perhaps he is looking at it from chronological analysis based upon random happenstance.
i.e.: beliefless=helpless

although you could claim belief and apply that to yourself there is no basis for necessity thus a lack of a prime directive.