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

[harvey1]

Appeals to our view that meaning is the most important quality of the universe? I deny that it really is a quality, of course, but just because it appeals to our view, does not mean we have to behave in accord with it. Amazingly, you are claiming subjective reasons for acting in relation this overall meaning, whatever it is, that exists in the universe.

No, it does not mean that we have to behave according to it, but it gives us good reason to do so. This is not the same level of appeal that an atheist has to think contrary to the meaningless nature of the universe, this is something that affects them directly in that they are in direct contact with their God and everything that is important to them in the final end is all that matters.

Objectively important? Pardon me, but I find that terribly amusing, harvey! I find it almost as amusing as objective values. How do you measure objective importance? How do you establish its existence? You would make an excellent pataphysician.

Objective values are pragmatic values that bear much fruit over the long term over a wide range of experiences. So, for example, "love thy neighbor as yourself" is an objective value of goodness because this value has pragmatic utility that brings prosperity to all over the long term. It is a moral value that actually exists and stands above the more primal moral norms of bygone eras (e.g., "an eye for an eye"). Such values express a sense of beauty about human affairs, and therefore they have an innate appearance about themselves that appear right to many people over a wide range of cultures and experiences.

Everyone must invent what is subjectively important. One still must use one's own judgement to decide whether acting in accordance with what you claim has objective importance. If an action places you outside of what is "objectively important", then that still might not be terribly important to you.

To be consistent with a religious outlook the religious scheme should not lightly throw away passed on spiritual knowledge. One needs to have good reason to reject that knowledge which means being guided by the Spirit of God to make such insightful judgements. This is not the case with an atheist viewpoint. It is whatever you want to do. You cannot be consistent with a religious mentality by doing whatever you want to do. In fact, someone who lives that way is probably living an anti-religious life.

Sure, you might. But in any case, "at your own peril" still has a great deal of significance in most dealings in the outside world. I very rarely come across anonymous strangers who need help, and even more rare is the situation where I can do a bad thing to an anonymous stranger and get away with it without paying for it in some way.

This is just not the way the spiritually religious person sees the world, Corvus. The anonymous stranger has a whole series of needs that the spiritually religious person seeks to fill. I am not a great example in this regard, I admit, but I have spent a great deal of time with people who do put forth that effort. That's not to say that there are not atheists or agnostics that are not like that, but I haven't met that many to be honest. It's just a whole different level of mentality that Christ calls people to be like. It's not living the former life of unbelief, it's a way of living life where you are caught up in making other human beings' lives better.

A more meaningful place? How can something that is defined as being meaningful be made even moreso by meaningful actions? Is meaning then a quantifiable thing?

The world can be rather meaningless at times, if you ask me. By living a meaningful life we make the world a more meaningful place for others. This can only be true because there is meaning to begin with. But, the meaning in the world is at a struggle with the meaningless that also exists, and this is what the spiritual mind should seek to overcome in the world.

[Corvus]

Appeals to our view that meaning is the most important quality of the universe? I deny that it really is a quality, of course, but just because it appeals to our view, does not mean we have to behave in accord with it. Amazingly, you are claiming subjective reasons for acting in relation this overall meaning, whatever it is, that exists in the universe.

No, it does not mean that we have to behave according to it, but it gives us good reason to do so.

You wrote that objective meaning gives us a good reason to behave morally, but you have not written about the reason to behave according to an objective meaning.

This is not the same level of appeal that an atheist has to think contrary to the meaningless nature of the universe, this is something that affects them directly in that they are in direct contact with their God and everything that is important to them in the final end is all that matters.

I see no difference with an atheist viewpoint here except the part about God.

I also disagree that an atheist has to act contrary to the meaningless of the universe. If no meaning exists, there is nothing to act contrary to. Meaningless is not some principle we must follow or a concept whose very existence "gives us a reason to follow it", as you believe for an objective meaning. Meaninglessness is the absence of the quality of meaning, a quality I deny exists in any form but in the minds of people, but am willing to allow you its existence if it can be shown that one should - or has reason to - act in accordance with it.

Objectively important? Pardon me, but I find that terribly amusing, harvey! I find it almost as amusing as objective values. How do you measure objective importance? How do you establish its existence? You would make an excellent pataphysician.

Objective values are pragmatic values that bear much fruit over the long term over a wide range of experiences. So, for example, "love thy neighbor as yourself" is an objective value of goodness because this value has pragmatic utility that brings prosperity to all over the long term. It is a moral value that actually exists and stands above the more primal moral norms of bygone eras (e.g., "an eye for an eye"). Such values express a sense of beauty about human affairs, and therefore they have an innate appearance about themselves that appear right to many people over a wide range of cultures and experiences.

An atheist could have written this, harvey1, and if he did, I would still disagree with it. I see nothing objective here. You admit that objectives values are pragmatic values, which seems to me a contradiction, since if the importance of something relies on its usefulness, then that importance does not exist in any objective sense as part of the object, but as a judgement of how well it performs a given function.

"Love thy neighbour as yourself" is not a value, but an imperative. The idea that a neighbour has the same worth as yourself is a value, but all values, by their very nature, are applied, not intrinsic. One need only consult a dictionary to see that. Find me a definition of value from the link where value does not need to be applied, abd where value has no relation to its usefulness, its purpose or its merits that can only be treasured by a subjective observer.

Everyone must invent what is subjectively important. One still must use one's own judgement to decide whether acting in accordance with what you claim has objective importance. If an action places you outside of what is "objectively important", then that still might not be terribly important to you.

To be consistent with a religious outlook the religious scheme should not lightly throw away passed on spiritual knowledge.

Excuse me, but I don't believe I'm lightly throwing away any knowledge. For this example, God hypothetically exists, the universe exists and was created by him, along with humanity, and, I am even willing to allow a concept that I think inherently ridiculous, to which you give the name "objective meaning". Of course you don't believe it's a concept but an actual "thing" that has a very real existence.

So far, I see no reasons to act according to how God wishes me to act. We just have very many "things".

One needs to have good reason to reject that knowledge which means being guided by the Spirit of God to make such insightful judgements.

Oh, and here we introduce a new ingredient into the discussion; a Spirit informing our conscience. I will speak to the spirit. The spirit is giving me knowledge of how to act. Oh look, now the spirit of the devil is doing likewise. The transmission isn't all that good, but they just appear to be barking orders at me and not actually giving reasons for doing what they want me to be doing. Maybe you can help them?

This is not the case with an atheist viewpoint. It is whatever you want to do. You cannot be consistent with a religious mentality by doing whatever you want to do. In fact, someone who lives that way is probably living an anti-religious life.

Pas du tout. We are arguing whether Christian beliefs give one reasons to behave morally. If your argument is merely that the existence of a religion means that the religious people who subscribe to it must behave according to its precepts otherwise they are anti-religious, or that traditions of obeying something must be kept but not questioned, then you have no firm basis for your morality or for claiming atheism has none. Give me reasons for obeying god other than fear or greediness for rewards. If those are the only reasons you can come up with, which resemble the basis for moral conduct you put forward for a consistent atheist, then I see no need to debate. The consistent atheist is no different then the consistent Christian.

Sure, you might. But in any case, "at your own peril" still has a great deal of significance in most dealings in the outside world. I very rarely come across anonymous strangers who need help, and even more rare is the situation where I can do a bad thing to an anonymous stranger and get away with it without paying for it in some way.

This is just not the way the spiritually religious person sees the world, Corvus. The anonymous stranger has a whole series of needs that the spiritually religious person seeks to fill. I am not a great example in this regard, I admit, but I have spent a great deal of time with people who do put forth that effort. That's not to say that there are not atheists or agnostics that are not like that, but I haven't met that many to be honest. It's just a whole different level of mentality that Christ calls people to be like. It's not living the former life of unbelief, it's a way of living life where you are caught up in making other human beings' lives better.

I don't deny it. And you probably shouldn't exempt a few atheists in also being caught up in the same mentality. What I deny is that there is any justification for it outside of what we want.

[bernee51]

I would posit that the primary function of religion is to give meaning and legitimacy to believers when they are faced with the obvious 'suffering' of life's experiences. It can also be shown that the 'vogue' religions have changed (evolved?) over the millennia. From animist, to magical to the mythic that currently holds sway. It probably is a good enough reason...as long as they don't take it as their right to force their beliefs on others.

That's another topic...

True...the last bit was off topic.

The question original question however was "Is life meaningless without God?"

What I am suggesting is that most (if not all) get meaning from their beliefs...which particular version of god they happen to believe in (if at all) is purely incidental.

God is not at all necessary for a meaningful life.

[Dilettante]

I was under the impression that, for a course of action to qualify as moral or immoral, it had to be chosen freely. People do not form their own sense of morality any which way they want (unless they are sociopaths or moral imbeciles) because morality is essentially social. A castaway on a desert island has no use for morality. So, if people want their society to be successful, they will collectively adopt a moral code and teach it to their children. There really can be no such thing as "individual morality". Only a moral imbecile would believe that one person's moral standards are as good as any other's. Not even ethical relativists say such a thing. They believe instead that one society's moral standards are as good as any other society's moral standards. This is also false, of course.

People go along with what they are taught about morality, however they reach a point to where temptation to reject that moral behavior arises, and if they are religious, they justify their rejection of that moral temptation because of their religious values and belief in God. If there are no religious values, just values based on the world being ultimately a meaningless existence, then individuals would feel free to succumb to moral temptation since they will often have little reason not to. That is, if giving into the moral temptation clearly has no direct impact upon them, there is little reason not to give into the moral temptation. They can have a lofty view that such actions accumulate across the globe to make the world worse off, but in reality that's little reason to reject a moral temptation. Moral temptation can be tough to bypass, and I cannot conceive of an ordinary Joe bypassing the delight that comes from giving in to a moral temptation just because the world will be ultimately worse off if everyone did the same thing. How many practical decisions does an individual make that employ this kind of thinking? For example, if everyone on earth drove an automobile, then the world would be worse off, would it not? How many atheists drive cars? Many do. So, why don't atheists give up driving cars if negative consequences would result if everyone did it?

Not everybody goes along with what they're taught about morality without ever questioning it. Hopefully, questioning traditional morality will not lead one to abandon morality altogether but to refine it, improve on it, or adopt a superior set of moral rules. The temptation to abandon moral behavior altogether can be overcome by exercising prudence (phronesis) and by reflecting on the self-destructive consequences of abandoning morality. Morality is all about a society persevering in being. That's what moral values are based on. No set of moral values can be based on meaninglessness. That would be contradictory. No society can be based on meaninglessness, and no society can survive without a set of moral rules. A person who viewed his/her life as meaningless and without value would eventually contemplate suicide. But human life is meaningful to us (or most of us at least), whether we believe that meaning to have been divinely assigned or assigned by us.

There may be little subjective reason to resist moral temptation, but objectively, the case for resisting temptation is much stronger. People should be taught to think more objectively in such situations. Our actions always affect more people than we think. Often there is no need to wait and see how our actions accumulate across the world: the consequences of our actions can be felt by those immediately around us. People who are more integrated will probably think in more objective terms and exercise prudence.

Your example about atheists driving cars is not very well chosen, because in western societies (especially in the US) driving is generally not much of a choice: not everyone can live next door to their workplace. Just for the record, I don't drive--because I don't need to. If I needed to drive in order to put food on the table for my wife and kids, the moral thing for me to do would be to drive. My driving may well then have deleterious effects on the environment and thus be felt by people across the world, but then we would be talking about ethics, not morality (at least according to my definition). The fact is that ethics and morality, although generally overlapping, do sometimes conflict.

[harvey1]

You wrote that objective meaning gives us a good reason to behave morally, but you have not written about the reason to behave according to an objective meaning.

Whose moral values should we use in a moral debate? How do we come to agreement on what are the moral values to use? 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.

This is not the same level of appeal that an atheist has to think contrary to the meaningless nature of the universe, this is something that affects them directly in that they are in direct contact with their God and everything that is important to them in the final end is all that matters.

I see no difference with an atheist viewpoint here except the part about God.

The consistent atheist, however, doesn't have to believe that every aggressive action they do against others affects them directly. That would actually be preposterous for them to believe that. The consistent atheist would need hard data to show that is the case. Even natural selection speaks volumes that this is not the case. Species survive all the time if they behave ruthlessly.

I also disagree that an atheist has to act contrary to the meaningless of the universe. If no meaning exists, there is nothing to act contrary to. Meaningless is not some principle we must follow or a concept whose very existence "gives us a reason to follow it", as you believe for an objective meaning. Meaninglessness is the absence of the quality of meaning, a quality I deny exists in any form but in the minds of people, but am willing to allow you its existence if it can be shown that one should - or has reason to - act in accordance with it.

I'm not saying an atheist has to act in accordance with meaninglessness. I'm saying that an atheist doesn't have to act as if there is meaning in the universe. They only need to act in accordance to that which affects them directly (i.e., without any lofty notions that every action affects them). The reason that a consistent atheist can attempt to justify their behavior based on the meaninglessness of the universe is doing so removes them from any moral obligation to act outside of their direct interests. They have no reason to sacrifice their direct interests given the vast scale of meaninglessness in the universe and the impossibility of fixing anything if things could be fixed in such a ruthless setting.

An atheist could have written this, harvey1, and if he did, I would still disagree with it. I see nothing objective here. You admit that objectives values are pragmatic values, which seems to me a contradiction, since if the importance of something relies on its usefulness, then that importance does not exist in any objective sense as part of the object, but as a judgement of how well it performs a given function.

The same could be said of mathematics. However, a pragmatist holding a Peircean outlook, such as myself, says that certain beliefs are more effective because they are true. The argument also applies for scientific beliefs. There's no way to know scientific beliefs are true, but they are instrumental in our being able to exploit the laws of nature, and the reason why is because this efficaciousness is a sign that the beliefs are true about nature.

"Love thy neighbour as yourself" is not a value, but an imperative. The idea that a neighbour has the same worth as yourself is a value, but all values, by their very nature, are applied, not intrinsic. One need only consult a dictionary to see that. Find me a definition of value from the link where value does not need to be applied, abd where value has no relation to its usefulness, its purpose or its merits that can only be treasured by a subjective observer.

Theories of value ask what what sort of things are good. A value is something that is good (e.g.., "loving your neighbor as yourself").

Excuse me, but I don't believe I'm lightly throwing away any knowledge. For this example, God hypothetically exists, the universe exists and was created by him, along with humanity, and, I am even willing to allow a concept that I think inherently ridiculous, to which you give the name "objective meaning". Of course you don't believe it's a concept but an actual "thing" that has a very real existence. So far, I see no reasons to act according to how God wishes me to act. We just have very many "things".

The reasons to act as God wishes is that it is in our best interest to do so. This is not the case for a consistent atheist who must consider their best interest to be decided by them and solely by them on a situation by situation basis and not necessarily acting in a consistently "good behavior." Good behavior is not a meaningful term for a consistent atheist. Behavior that promotes the self is an acceptable goal of a consistent atheist making their way in a meaningless world.

Oh, and here we introduce a new ingredient into the discussion; a Spirit informing our conscience. I will speak to the spirit. The spirit is giving me knowledge of how to act. Oh look, now the spirit of the devil is doing likewise. The transmission isn't all that good, but they just appear to be barking orders at me and not actually giving reasons for doing what they want me to be doing. Maybe you can help them?

The Spirit of God is that intuitive part of our connection with God that allows us to see the will of God in our lives. This is a different subject matter, so I don't think it is necessary to discuss further here.

Pas du tout. We are arguing whether Christian beliefs give one reasons to behave morally. If your argument is merely that the existence of a religion means that the religious people who subscribe to it must behave according to its precepts otherwise they are anti-religious, or that traditions of obeying something must be kept but not questioned, then you have no firm basis for your morality or for claiming atheism has none. Give me reasons for obeying god other than fear or greediness for rewards. If those are the only reasons you can come up with, which resemble the basis for moral conduct you put forward for a consistent atheist, then I see no need to debate. The consistent atheist is no different then the consistent Christian.

The consistent atheist does not have to be a "moral person" in the way that many others consider to be moral. Morality is entirely subjective and perhaps relative to the consistent atheist. Morality is a means to an end. The end being the least amount of trouble to them and those they care about.

Morality for the spiritual-minded religionist is to be in conformance with God's ultimate will in the world. It means living a lifestyle which seeks morality because it is God's will, not because it meets some human objective. In return, the spiritual-minded religionist is rewarded with the peace of mind knowing that they have a meaningful life now and forever more. You call it greed, but we have different definitions of greed. In my view, greed is the lust for money, power, etc., in such a way that one is willing to forego the more meaningful aspects of life to get those things. Greed is not embracing the meaningful aspects of life to get those things, that is what I call spiritual living.

I don't deny it. And you probably shouldn't exempt a few atheists in also being caught up in the same mentality. What I deny is that there is any justification for it outside of what we want.

If it is only what we want, then it is really a matter of priority. If you can benefit yourself by taking care of yourself, then according to the logic of a consistent atheist we shouldn't feel any sense of commitment to go contrary to what benefits us. We can sacrifice our priorities if we want, but why would we want that if it means neglecting our own priorities? The world is a meaningless place, why try to save the world from meaninglessness, it's just gonna stay that way. Better to take care of oneself and those around you and put lower priority on taking care of others outside that circle.

[harvey1]

What I am suggesting is that most (if not all) get meaning from their beliefs...which particular version of god they happen to believe in (if at all) is purely incidental. God is not at all necessary for a meaningful life.

This is not what I mean by saying that atheism is not meaningful. One can live a meaningful existence by going to Star Trek conventions (or Star Wars conventions), but that doesn't mean that those folks really are living a meaningful existence. Meaning is ultimately an objective feature of the world. This is why I say atheism is not ultimately meaningful since atheism is based on the universe being a brute fact reality that has no ultimate meaning.

[harvey1]

Not everybody goes along with what they're taught about morality without ever questioning it. Hopefully, questioning traditional morality will not lead one to abandon morality altogether but to refine it, improve on it, or adopt a superior set of moral rules.

Yes, I agree, and we should all be doing just that. 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. The consistent theist already believes that God has made contact with humanity through inspiring human writers of their respective religion, and based on those inspirational writings, the theist is applying those scriptures to their life.

The consistent atheist is in a totally different situation. 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.

The temptation to abandon moral behavior altogether can be overcome by exercising prudence (phronesis) and by reflecting on the self-destructive consequences of abandoning morality. Morality is all about a society persevering in being. That's what moral values are based on. No set of moral values can be based on meaninglessness. That would be contradictory. No society can be based on meaninglessness, and no society can survive without a set of moral rules. A person who viewed his/her life as meaningless and without value would eventually contemplate suicide. But human life is meaningful to us (or most of us at least), whether we believe that meaning to have been divinely assigned or assigned by us.

I agree with what you are saying, however the consistent atheist is not going to say, "hmm... I really want to ________, but I realize that Christians would not approve of that moral behavior. Therefore, I'll sacrifice doing _________ so that society could be an inkling better off as a result in a way that is difficult for me to imagine how my behavior has such a global impact." That's not how a consistent atheist will think. They'll think like this, "hmm... I really want to _________, and I realize that Christians would consider that wrong, but that is based on their superstitious beliefs on morality that I do not share. I am not concerned about any global impact that doing _________ has on others because I think that is ridiculous to think that an evolved society will be much worse off as a result."

There may be little subjective reason to resist moral temptation, but objectively, the case for resisting temptation is much stronger. People should be taught to think more objectively in such situations. Our actions always affect more people than we think. Often there is no need to wait and see how our actions accumulate across the world: the consequences of our actions can be felt by those immediately around us. People who are more integrated will probably think in more objective terms and exercise prudence.

Listen to the reply of a consistent atheist:

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.

Notice that the consistent atheist is right. We cannot prove one moral belief higher than another. Coming from their atheist perspective, they are even right that morality is not a concern for humanists. It is just a matter of law and enforcement. If you get caught, you get punished, and you go to jail. That's all the motivation you need as an atheist since jail would be taking you away from the only life you can possibly have, so what better reason to motivate a consistent atheist to keep a fair amount of morals in order to avoid jail?

[Corvus]

You wrote that objective meaning gives us a good reason to behave morally, but you have not written about the reason to behave according to an objective meaning.

Whose moral values should we use in a moral debate? How do we come to agreement on what are the moral values to use?

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.

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.

This is not the same level of appeal that an atheist has to think contrary to the meaningless nature of the universe, this is something that affects them directly in that they are in direct contact with their God and everything that is important to them in the final end is all that matters.

I see no difference with an atheist viewpoint here except the part about God.

The consistent atheist, however, doesn't have to believe that every aggressive action they do against others affects them directly. That would actually be preposterous for them to believe that. The consistent atheist would need hard data to show that is the case. Even natural selection speaks volumes that this is not the case. Species survive all the time if they behave ruthlessly.

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."

"Love thy neighbour as yourself" is not a value, but an imperative. The idea that a neighbour has the same worth as yourself is a value, but all values, by their very nature, are applied, not intrinsic. One need only consult a dictionary to see that. Find me a definition of value from the link where value does not need to be applied, abd where value has no relation to its usefulness, its purpose or its merits that can only be treasured by a subjective observer.

Theories of value ask what what sort of things are good. A value is something that is good (e.g.., "loving your neighbor as yourself").

This looks like the sort of rebuttal one makes when one does not have a rebuttal.

Excuse me, but I don't believe I'm lightly throwing away any knowledge. For this example, God hypothetically exists, the universe exists and was created by him, along with humanity, and, I am even willing to allow a concept that I think inherently ridiculous, to which you give the name "objective meaning". Of course you don't believe it's a concept but an actual "thing" that has a very real existence. So far, I see no reasons to act according to how God wishes me to act. We just have very many "things".

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

Finally an admission!

This is not the case for a consistent atheist who must consider their best interest to be decided by them and solely by them on a situation by situation basis and not necessarily acting in a consistently "good behavior." Good behavior is not a meaningful term for a consistent atheist. Behavior that promotes the self is an acceptable goal of a consistent atheist making their way in a meaningless world.

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.

Oh, and here we introduce a new ingredient into the discussion; a Spirit informing our conscience. I will speak to the spirit. The spirit is giving me knowledge of how to act. Oh look, now the spirit of the devil is doing likewise. The transmission isn't all that good, but they just appear to be barking orders at me and not actually giving reasons for doing what they want me to be doing. Maybe you can help them?

The Spirit of God is that intuitive part of our connection with God that allows us to see the will of God in our lives. This is a different subject matter, so I don't think it is necessary to discuss further here.

I certainly didn't bring it up.

Pas du tout. We are arguing whether Christian beliefs give one reasons to behave morally. If your argument is merely that the existence of a religion means that the religious people who subscribe to it must behave according to its precepts otherwise they are anti-religious, or that traditions of obeying something must be kept but not questioned, then you have no firm basis for your morality or for claiming atheism has none. Give me reasons for obeying god other than fear or greediness for rewards. If those are the only reasons you can come up with, which resemble the basis for moral conduct you put forward for a consistent atheist, then I see no need to debate. The consistent atheist is no different then the consistent Christian.

The consistent atheist does not have to be a "moral person" in the way that many others consider to be moral. Morality is entirely subjective and perhaps relative to the consistent atheist. Morality is a means to an end. The end being the least amount of trouble to them and those they care about.

Morality for the spiritual-minded religionist is to be in conformance with God's ultimate will in the world. It means living a lifestyle which seeks morality because it is God's will, not because it meets some human objective. In return, the spiritual-minded religionist is rewarded with the peace of mind knowing that they have a meaningful life now and forever more. You call it greed, but we have different definitions of greed. In my view, greed is the lust for money, power, etc., in such a way that one is willing to forego the more meaningful aspects of life to get those things. Greed is not embracing the meaningful aspects of life to get those things, that is what I call spiritual living.

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.

I don't deny it. And you probably shouldn't exempt a few atheists in also being caught up in the same mentality. What I deny is that there is any justification for it outside of what we want.

If it is only what we want, then it is really a matter of priority. If you can benefit yourself by taking care of yourself, then according to the logic of a consistent atheist we shouldn't feel any sense of commitment to go contrary to what benefits us. We can sacrifice our priorities if we want, but why would we want that if it means neglecting our own priorities? The world is a meaningless place, why try to save the world from meaninglessness, it's just gonna stay that way. Better to take care of oneself and those around you and put lower priority on taking care of others outside that circle.

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.

[bernee51]

This is not what I mean by saying that atheism is not meaningful. One can live a meaningful existence by going to Star Trek conventions (or Star Wars conventions), but that doesn't mean that those folks really are living a meaningful existence.

That is a subjective opinion...their subjective opinion is obviously different.

Meaning is ultimately an objective feature of the world.

Because you say so?

What 'objective meaning' i.e. one that applies to all regardless of race, religion, age etc would you like to desribe?

This is why I say atheism is not ultimately meaningful since atheism is based on the universe being a brute fact reality that has no ultimate meaning.

What gives meaning to the universe is you and me Harvey, and the other sentient beings in the universe.

Religion is not meaningful in and of itself...it is the meaning taken out of it by those who believe. In our world, it is people who give meaning to existence - regardless of belief.

[perplexed101]

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