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

[bernee51]

influence greater than reason is a foriegn concept until applied directly and even then that basic pattern is repressed.

and this is apropos of....?

[harvey1]

We don't. Moral arguments presuppose agreement is possible. They also presuppose there are reasons for acting in accordance with the dictates of moral arguments. The reasons are what I am proposing to tackle, specifically; does meaning give us a reason to act morally. I think I've done fairly well showing they do not.

I missed that argument. Which argument showed that meaning in the universe does not give us good reason to act morally? As I've shown, a lack of meaning gives one good reason to act in their best interests as they see fit as per the situation at hand.

One way is to look at the universe as it is, and based on whatever meaning the universe has (or doesn't have), we can at least come to some objective basis for morality.

I see no basis. What I do see is an example to follow, but the example doesn't present a reason for acting on it. There's also the little problem that your "meaning of the universe" is a metaphysical construct unaccessible to experience, which makes "meaning" either what you say it is or what God says it is.

There is a basis for basing one's morality on the meaning of the universe since if the universe has meaning for those with high morals, then it gives good incentives for such a person to act on those high morals. On the othre hand, a meaningless universe gives no particular incentive beyond what one can contemplate as acting in their best interests as they see fit as per the situation at hand.

I haven't denied this. I have stated quite specifically that the Old Chap who punishes or rewards people based on their actions and has the advantage of seeing everything is an excellent reason to do right all the time. What you appear to be doing is describing this moral dictator in terms a little kindlier than I, or trying to avoid mentioning him at all, then trying to claim the moral high ground. My definition of ethics is this: "The positing of bad reasons for what we do by instinct, by upbringing, by psychology or by whim."

I accept that many atheists have good morals because of upbringing (e.g., many atheists were raised in Christian homes, or are third generation descendants of Christian environments). What I reject though is that multi-generational atheism living in a predominate atheist society will be morally successful.

The reasons to act as God wishes is that it is in our best interest to do so.

Finally an admission!

Why do you say it like that? Of course it's a reason to act morally. If there were no benefit to do so, then why would it matter how you acted?

More equivocation! They are exactly alike, down to their motives. Your point about the situation by situation basis on which an atheist acts is important, however, because it gives us the only difference betwen the Christian and atheists: situation. By this I mean that we can expect an atheist to behave in exactly the same way if they knew their every action was being watched, say, by video cameras and they knew punishment awaited them if they did wrong. This is the sole difference. The consist Christian and the consistent atheist act on exactly same reasons.

Not at all. The consistent atheist acts based on the universe being a meaningless place, hence they act with no incentive to act outside of their secular self-interest. The Christian acts based on the universe being a meaningful place, thus they act with an incentive to act outside of their secular self-interest. They act with spiritual intent. The consistent atheist considers that to be acting out of superstitious intent.

And this is what I call sentimentality. But I am not asking you how you define good for a religious person, or how a religious person defines good. I am quite aware that one must be obedient to God's will and follow the example set by Christ in order to be a Christian. I am quite certain that this is what expected from God and from man. What I am searching for is a reason to do so, which I have yet to see except "self-interest". Meaning as a reason to act a certain way is quite meaningless.

Acting a certain way because it is meaningful universe is a self-interested way to act, but acting because it is a meaningful universe tells you why it is a self-interested way. Acting in response to a meaningful universe gives a reason why someone would act beyond their secular self-interest. It is still self-interest, but the difference is that it is not a carnal type of self-interest where one is just trying to save their own skin at the sake of someone else. Rather, it is a spiritual type of self-interest where your neighbor is your self-interest because in the framework of a meaningful universe, this happens to be the case. Every action is judged. Every act of kindness is meaningful and important and has a value higher than the carnal type of self-interest.

Everyone does that to some extent. There are always going to be priorities based on emotional attachments. I doubt any Christian has achieved the level of altruism where they are quite willing to favour a beggar as much as they favour their friends and family. I don't call that bad, I call it human nature.

The difference though is that Christianity says to be like Jesus who gave his life for those who even hated him and crucified him. It's the act of pure love from God to man. Having this example, the Christian is to act according to this spiritual mindset. This is totally unlike the consistent atheist who would not seek such kind of moral lessons to be taught to them unless the science said it would benefit them like exercise reduces their chances of heart attack.

[Dilettante]

harvey1 wrote:

The difference, though, between a consistent atheist and a consistent (personal) theist is that the consistent theist is not trying to re-write the writings of theism, rather a consistent theist merely tries to understand the writings of theism in contemporary life.

Why would an atheist want to re-write the writings of theism?

The consistent atheist does not believe in any divine revelation handed down from the past, and every piece of morality handed to them may or may not be in their best interests, so the consistent atheist should consider on a case by case situation the moral recommendations handed down to them. If it turns out that they see morals as an impediment to their lifestyle, then unless there's perilous reasons to reconsider, the consistent atheist can very easily dump the moral recommendation as unnecessary to their self-actualization as an individual.

Not necessarily. the consistent atheist will probably follow the moral rules of his/her corresponding society. What exactly does "self-actualization as an individual" mean? It seems to me that your "consistent atheist" is only consistent in his/her selfishness and foolishness. The preservation of his lifestyle depends on the preservation of the society of which he/she forms part. I don't see morality and ethics as synonymous. Morality is about the preservation of the group. Ethics is about the preservation of our individual selves, our bodies, and those of our fellow humans. Morality is only relative to a social group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, never to an individual.

From the fact that morality is relative to the group, and that moral rules differ across groups, it just doesn't follow that all moral systems are equal, or that it's not possible to establish the superiority of a certain moral framework over another. On the contrary, the fact that some civilizations/cultures are successful and some are not is a good indication of the superiority/inferiority of their respective moral systems.

A (supposedly) consistent atheist says: That's nice that you think that way, Dilettante. But in reality, we are a society that evolved from natural selective pressures in the wild. We still share 98+% of the genes of chimps, and it isn't even very well established that it is even healthy to suppress our reactions to many temptations. Doing so might be the reason why humans have certain phobias or act out Victorian repressive behavior. You'd have to establish which of your morals are "better" by using hard scientific data. I don't see how you can put those causal relationships together. Do you have enough evidence to show that your idea of morality is not causing problems elsewhere in society? It is much better for society to just have the rules they wish to have, punish those who break them with vigorous enforcement policies, and let people decide for themselves their behavior without the moral majority deciding those issues (and, no, I don't care if the moral majority in this case happens to be my fellow atheist). If more enforcement is needed, then those expenses just have to be paid by the society as a cost of living in a meaningless world.

Conflict within a society is inevitable. I harbor no illusions of ever achieving perfect harmony. And Freudian crackpot theories about repression and phobias are long past their sell-by date. Law enforcement is necessary to coordinate society but cannot replace ethics or morality.

Notice that the consistent atheist is right. We cannot prove one moral belief higher than another.

I'd say time would prove that a society made up of such individuals would soon go to the dogs.
But people have moral inclinations even before they learn to be afraid of jail. You seem to think like Napoleon ("a priest saves me a hundred policemen") and put God in the place of the Great Policeman with the panoptikon view.

[harvey1]

Why would an atheist want to re-write the writings of theism?

I don't know that they would. However, they have no restriction to re-write the moral lessons that are passed onto them on a situation by situation basis. They are not necessarily driven to a high moral position that they need to refer to, nor should they necessarily treat any such viewpoint passed onto them as such.

Not necessarily. the consistent atheist will probably follow the moral rules of his/her corresponding society. What exactly does "self-actualization as an individual" mean? It seems to me that your "consistent atheist" is only consistent in his/her selfishness and foolishness. The preservation of his lifestyle depends on the preservation of the society of which he/she forms part.

I know this is how you feel, but there is no overwhelming scientific evidence that show this to be the case under the assumption that the consistent atheist gets what they want: enactment and enforcement of laws that protect the interests of the public.

I don't see morality and ethics as synonymous. Morality is about the preservation of the group. Ethics is about the preservation of our individual selves, our bodies, and those of our fellow humans. Morality is only relative to a social group, a nation, a culture or a civilization, never to an individual.

In my view, there is a distinction between morality and ethics, but not the same distinction that you make. Morality is the system of factors that one uses to judge right from wrong. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with moral decisions. We are discussing ethics, but our discussion is about certain aspects of morality, namely, are there differences in how a consistent theist and a consistent atheist would construct or apply morals based on their respective view of meaning in the universe? My argument is "yes," there are differences in how a consistent atheist would construct or apply morals based on a view that the universe is meaningless.

Law enforcement is necessary to coordinate society but cannot replace ethics or morality.

An atheist need not be sold on this. In any case, they might believe that their actions do not in any way significantly contribute to the poor morality of the society.

I'd say time would prove that a society made up of such individuals would soon go to the dogs.
But people have moral inclinations even before they learn to be afraid of jail. You seem to think like Napoleon ("a priest saves me a hundred policemen") and put God in the place of the Great Policeman with the panoptikon view.

All I'm saying is that atheism is a meaningless view and its impact would have a severe impact to society if it ever expanded beyond the small minority that it is now.

[Curious]

All I'm saying is that atheism is a meaningless view and its impact would have a severe impact to society if it ever expanded beyond the small minority that it is now.

England is predominantly atheist in view. I would say that this "small minority" are severely impacting society in advancing all branches of science.

[Dilettante]

Anyone can re-write the moral lessons of the past. Theists can claim new revelations (even permanent revelation, as in the case of the Mormons, who did an about face about polygamy and black people) or start new religious movements. And just as atheists can borrow elements of theistic moral systems, the reverse also happens. Apart from pagan ideas borrowed from Aristotle and Plato, there is also a considerable Stoic influence on Christianity, even though Stoics were materialists. Surely you don't really think a society of Stoics would degenerate quickly.

I realize that the criterion you use to distinguish between morality and ethics is a popular one, but I prefer the one I used (borrowed from Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno) because it is less confusing.

I am aware that an atheist may not be sold on any of the things I said, but might be persuaded through reason. Obviously we need law and order to keep dishonest atheists in line, but the same applies to dishonest theists. Some people seem to think that, since God likes to forgive us, they can always sin now and repent later.

In any case, I don't foresee atheism becoming the majority view, so, even if you were right, you would probably have nothing to fear anyway.

[harvey1]

England is predominantly atheist in view. I would say that this "small minority" are severely impacting society in advancing all branches of science.

A recent poll by AP/Ipsos found that the U.K. is about 16% atheistic. The U.S. is about 2%. France and South Korea is an amazing 19%. Well, I guess my posts aren't being read there.

[perplexed101]

what's the percentage of tv programs that portray athiesm and evolution?

and textbooks?

[Corvus]

We don't. Moral arguments presuppose agreement is possible. They also presuppose there are reasons for acting in accordance with the dictates of moral arguments. The reasons are what I am proposing to tackle, specifically; does meaning give us a reason to act morally. I think I've done fairly well showing they do not.

I missed that argument. Which argument showed that meaning in the universe does not give us good reason to act morally? As I've shown, a lack of meaning gives one good reason to act in their best interests as they see fit as per the situation at hand.

No, you've shown a lack of moral dictator in the next life gives one good reason to act in their best interests as they see fit as per the situation at hand. I have never denied that a consistent atheist should act as his self-interest demands, and it's extremely curious that you keep beating me around the head with the blunt point. What you don't seem to like hearing is that the existence of a moral dictator in the next life also requires on to act in their best interests as they see fit as per the situation at hand/in the forseeable future. Only the situations are different in regards to accountability and distance from repercussions.

You have not shown that meaning in the universe - or the reason for existence, or information carried or whatever you wish to call it or however you wish to use philosophical jargon to define it - gives a good reason for behaving in accord with it, except with the existence of a moral dictator.

One way is to look at the universe as it is, and based on whatever meaning the universe has (or doesn't have), we can at least come to some objective basis for morality.

I see no basis. What I do see is an example to follow, but the example doesn't present a reason for acting on it. There's also the little problem that your "meaning of the universe" is a metaphysical construct unaccessible to experience, which makes "meaning" either what you say it is or what God says it is.

There is a basis for basing one's morality on the meaning of the universe since if the universe has meaning for those with high morals, then it gives good incentives for such a person to act on those high morals.

The universe gives no good incentives to anyone. God does that. The meaning you claim to be present in the universe is just a property that the universe either has or doesn't have.

More equivocation! They are exactly alike, down to their motives. Your point about the situation by situation basis on which an atheist acts is important, however, because it gives us the only difference betwen the Christian and atheists: situation. By this I mean that we can expect an atheist to behave in exactly the same way if they knew their every action was being watched, say, by video cameras and they knew punishment awaited them if they did wrong. This is the sole difference. The consist Christian and the consistent atheist act on exactly same reasons.

Not at all. The consistent atheist acts based on the universe being a meaningless place, hence they act with no incentive to act outside of their secular self-interest. The Christian acts based on the universe being a meaningful place, thus they act with an incentive to act outside of their secular self-interest. They act with spiritual intent. The consistent atheist considers that to be acting out of superstitious intent.

Translation: The theist's rewards or punishments are distributed after life, while for the atheist, they are only experienced during life, if at all. I wonder why my conclusion warranted a "not at all" when it's quite obvious they are exactly alike in motive and in reason, but the theist must take into consideration something outside the universe.

Because the argument you made after this one was identical, I won't address it as I want to avoid having such long posts.

I find it fun watching ethical debates between atheists and theists because usually both sides try to claim a moral high ground. I don't believe there is a moral high ground and I don't see a need to struggle to find one. I am what one might call a moral skeptic. Your claim for the moral high ground makes little sense to me because it is attempting to prey on the same motives and reasons for doing good that atheism does, and, working from such a system, I don't see why, if a theist gives to a beggar for the same reason an atheist robs a bank, the theist should be praised and the atheist punished, all because of a difference in beliefs or differing information on consequences.

Everyone does that to some extent. There are always going to be priorities based on emotional attachments. I doubt any Christian has achieved the level of altruism where they are quite willing to favour a beggar as much as they favour their friends and family. I don't call that bad, I call it human nature.

The difference though is that Christianity says to be like Jesus who gave his life for those who even hated him and crucified him. It's the act of pure love from God to man. Having this example, the Christian is to act according to this spiritual mindset.

Yes, but why ought he to do so? For the same reason the consistent atheist does what he does.


Edit: Fixed a quote tag.

[QED]

I accept that many atheists have good morals because of upbringing (e.g., many atheists were raised in Christian homes, or are third generation descendants of Christian environments). What I reject though is that multi-generational atheism living in a predominate atheist society will be morally successful.

And the evidence that leads you to this stinging conclusion is? As one who is proud of the way my children are developing into thoughtful, caring individuals who question mumbo-jumbo whenever they encounter it, I find your remark somewhat irritating. Watching a recent news item discussing the US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol with me, my son (who is a budding environmentalist) wanted to know how so many people could be so inconsiderate. Hardly the concerns of a hedonist in waiting.

England is predominantly atheist in view. I would say that this "small minority" are severely impacting society in advancing all branches of science.

A recent poll by AP/Ipsos found that the U.K. is about 16% atheistic. The U.S. is about 2%. France and South Korea is an amazing 19%. Well, I guess my posts aren't being read there.

What a fascinating statistic. I suppose if we map the crime rates on top of these figures we will also have to conclude that all atheists are criminals.