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

[Corvus]

It wasn't so much as representation as it was a demonstration. Atheists and Christians are not obligated to do anything. They can do as they please. The only differences are the types of ramifications that follow. For the atheists, it's the ramifications created by the existence of other people. For Christians, it's not only the issues arising from the existence of other people, it's the issues that arise from the existence of god and what he wants you to do.

God wants to view what i do as acts of faith for Him not as repetitive motions and to treat you in a manner that if you were down and out to give you a helping hand.

That's nice and all, but why must you?

[perplexed101]

It wasn't so much as representation as it was a demonstration. Atheists and Christians are not obligated to do anything. They can do as they please. The only differences are the types of ramifications that follow. For the atheists, it's the ramifications created by the existence of other people. For Christians, it's not only the issues arising from the existence of other people, it's the issues that arise from the existence of god and what he wants you to do.

God wants to view what i do as acts of faith for Him not as repetitive motions and to treat you in a manner that if you were down and out to give you a helping hand.

That's nice and all, but why must you?

because what you are compelled to do is different than what you would normally do. The normal feelings toward one another is from mutual to indifference if you are peaceful. i believe that non-believers can be compelled as well depending on your value system. If you have a soft spot for kids then kids will be your warning bells if they need help and when so inclined. As a believer the spectrum is supposed to be broader but in accordance to moderation as a principle rather than a law.

[NaturalWay]

Do not think a thing true simply because you desire it so or that justice should requires it be so. You have heard it said that you must be born again. I tell you that with the sunrise of each new day you are born again. Each new day is like a new life. Ask yourself then what you must do so that by sunset you will lived the best day possible. This way, you can truly live one day at a time with purpose, for each day has its own purpose.

Which of your last breaths did you inhale because it was the sensible or reasonable thing to do? It is completely effortless. Living this Way requires no pretense of "meaning" and is as easy as breathing.

[Curious]

You forget what sparked the statement in the first place for a community's integrity is held together by influence and if the survivability were such that each person stating 'no' to an existing belief for influence was commonplace then the factor of influence compounding separate but equal frames of thought, one no and the other yea generating influence would naturally generate conflict and applying this pattern generates death and incohesion. In the following example i will show how influence that is greater than reasoning can be applied from surroundings.

Are you familiar with the old african saying which goes: "it takes a village to raise a child"? (this isnt exactly the specific example i want to show but an overall feel) Do you believe that statement? yes or no

answer the question and i'll give you the link for the excavation find for you to read or watch the video w/ audio presentation at your leisure.

Obviously it does not take a village to raise a child literally. If, on the other hand, you are attempting to raise a child with the distinct sociological perspective of the village, then of course the village is required for the study of dynamics and viewpoint.
In the above quote you assume that people with different beliefs would automatically come to blows. You also seem to conclude that the belief is necessarily precedent to the society( or pre existing as you say).
Historically, polytheistic societies have been far more tolerant than the more recent monotheistic ones. While what you claim about generating conflict may certainly be true in societies that believe in only one God, there is no evidence that this would be the case in primitive societies which are polytheistic or which have no previous concept of God. It is far more likely that violence is perpetrated on the believer of GodX by the believer of GodY. Furthermore,no society could hope to advance if the scenario of death and incohesion were an inevitable result of the re-evaluation of pre-existing beliefs.
If I didn't want to not appear unkind, I might suggest that you are not a real person but an attempt to create an artificial intelligence capable of communicating over the internet. I say this because although you apply a certain degree of logic in your argument you seem to lack the higher human faculties of discernment (pertaining to relevancy) and reason.

[Curious]

I would agree that atheists don't have to believe in the big bang, evolution, etc., but it is the position on the existence of God that brings about a belief in the meaninglessness of the world since there is no meaning that comes from our existence other than that we are here. Our existence is ultimately the result of randomness.

You seem to equating atheism with that of nihilism. While nihilists are most definitely atheists, it does not follow that all atheists are nihilists. This is like saying all cats are tigers.

[NaturalWay]

The universe in all its expanse and grandeur perceives Itself through man alone-- through you. Is that meaning enough for your existence?

Don’t ask, ‘What is my purpose in life?’ Instead ask, ‘What do I want to do today?’ A life not lived one day at a time is filled with pain, misery and regret.

[Curious]

Do not think a thing true simply because you desire it so or that justice should requires it be so. You have heard it said that you must be born again. I tell you that with the sunrise of each new day you are born again. Each new day is like a new life. Ask yourself then what you must do so that by sunset you will lived the best day possible. This way, you can truly live one day at a time with purpose, for each day has its own purpose.

Which of your last breaths did you inhale because it was the sensible or reasonable thing to do? It is completely effortless. Living this Way requires no pretense of "meaning" and is as easy as breathing.

I may be wrong in my assumption but you appear to be an advocate of hedonism. I do not say this is a wrong position but wouldn't that mean the meaning/purpose of your life is experience or self gratification?

[NaturalWay]

I don’t talk incessantly about myself. The more that you distinguish the ‘Self’ (which is a psychological construct) from everything else, you blind yourself to the unity of all things, which is a reality.

Hedonism seeks the "local maxima" if you will of pleasure without realizing that the mind quickly becomes desensitized to pleasure. The way I advocate transcends both pleasure and pain. Jesus said that you must love your neighbor as yourself but I say that until you forget about ‘self’ and ‘other’ you have no life in you.

[Curious]

I don’t talk incessantly about myself. The more that you distinguish the ‘Self’ (which is a psychological construct) from everything else, you blind yourself to the unity of all things, which is a reality.

Hedonism seeks the "local maxima" if you will of pleasure without realizing that the mind quickly becomes desensitized to pleasure. The way I advocate transcends both pleasure and pain. Jesus said that you must love your neighbor as yourself but I say that until you forget about ‘self’ and ‘other’ you have no life in you.

Isn't that what Jesus meant by "Love your brother as your soul"?

[perplexed101]

I don’t talk incessantly about myself. The more that you distinguish the ‘Self’ (which is a psychological construct) from everything else, you blind yourself to the unity of all things, which is a reality.

Hedonism seeks the "local maxima" if you will of pleasure without realizing that the mind quickly becomes desensitized to pleasure. The way I advocate transcends both pleasure and pain. Jesus said that you must love your neighbor as yourself but I say that until you forget about ‘self’ and ‘other’ you have no life in you.

Its apparent that curious is not exerting a certian amount of curiousity and would rather stipulate.