Without God Life Has No Purpose

[man]

I Googled that phrase and came up with this.

https://www.google.com/#q=without+god+l ... no+purpose

This is what religious people are being taught by their leaders. So we have all these people walking around thinking that there is an empty hole inside them that can only be filled by god and without god there lives have no purpose or meaning.

The thing that strikes me as being strange is I have always regarded all religions as myth and I am not a believer of any of them, but at the same time I don't have this empty hole inside me they talk about. I have never felt that my life has no purpose or meaning and in fact all of the things that these religious people say I need don't ever even cross my mind.

There is so much interesting REAL stuff to learn that I am so busy reading, working or doing whatever I happen to be interested in at the moment to have time to even think about this hole I am supposed to have inside me that I can't find. If anything I need a bigger hole to fit all of the things that I occupy myself with, my hole runneth over!

Anyway, I started thinking about teaching people that nonsense and it struck me as being a cruel thing to do. It's tantamount to saying, hey there is something wrong with you (when there isn't) and then telling them that you have the cure.

The phrase snake oil salesman comes to mind.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 39 by KenRU]

I'm not so sure that compassion does allow societies to survive, honestly. It seems to make more sense that brutal societies would dominate by force. I think the idea that modern societies live on because of their compassion is a myth. Compassion, by itself, is a competitive disadvantage. We live in a very competitive world. Manipulative and evil people are often very successful at the expense of well-meaning compassionate people.

You don't have to be moral, or even hard-working to survive. Some people rob and cheat their way to the top, and they do it because it's "smart" and it "works". When I was in college my marketing professor asked the class if they thought it was right for a big Walmart store to move in to a small town and displace all the local businesses. 99% of the class said it was. One aspiring young man in the back explained himself: "business is business" he said.

Unfortunately, what goes around doesn't always come around in this lifetime. So, if you think compassion is a survival advantage, I'd like to see where you're getting your information.

In short: nature, biology.

I'm no biologist/zoologist/scientist. What I have learned about evolution, I have read on my own and from the few courses I took in college, so I am only relaying my very "lay" opinion on the matter.

It seems to me to be as simple as animals that exhibit compassion are better suited to work cooperatively, and consequently those in that kind of society yield more offspring. Simple math.

I did a quick google search, and found the following:

"Compassion emerged, this reasoning holds, as a distinct affective state and trait because it enhances the welfare of vulnerable offspring, because it is a desirable emotion or attribute in mate selection processes, and because it enables cooperative relations with non-kin."

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2864937/

Now, as I understand this topic, the issue is by no means settled.

If there is anyone who knows more about this subject, your opinion is most welcome.

-all the best,

[Wissing]

Concerning the point about the evolution of compassion:
The article you cited is very thorough and contains many references. Thank you for going to the trouble to read through all of that. I realize that takes effort. However, it sounds like you looked that up fairly recently, meaning it probably wasn't the evidence that initially convinced you of your opinion. If your opinion is indeed based on evidence, it would seem to be a simple matter to merely present the evidence that convinced you of the point in the first place - no further reading required, on your part, but plenty for me to learn. No need to present any more on that issue in this thread, though, since it is a bit of an side-track, but I would be interested in reading (for my own sake, not for argument) the evidence that originally convinced you of the point, if you would send source information in a PM.



The rest of this post will continue my previous sentiment (and KenRU's request) about differentiating Christian and secular purposes.

One of the reasons, I think, that some assocciate atheist materialism with purposelessness, is that secular purposes often do not logically follow from secular premises. There is difficulty in A) believing that evolution is merely the outcome of blind material forces, and B) believing that the history of mankind is inevitably leading to a realm of harmony and justice. Having observed this inconsistency among a large number of influential members of Russian society, Semen Frank found it to be a dangerous contradiction[1]:

The craving for universal human happiness is so great that this difficulty is not even noticed; atheistic materialism can be illogically combined with a firm faith in the possibility of a perfect state of society.... They believe that the natural conditions for human happiness always exist. It is only necessary to suppress the injustice of the oppressors and to eradicate by education the stupidity of the exploited majority for the earthly paradise to be realized.

I think his observances are credible, partly because the inconsistencies he mentioned later bore "fruit" so to speak. The society did not evolve; 8 years after he said this, the society collapsed. Futhermore, his credence benefits from the fact that he changed to this opinion from another because of his experiences.

I choose to use the Russian revolution to support my argument for a few reasons: first, these readings impacted me... they really had an effect on my thinking. Second, it's hard to find a case study where there was so clearly an absence of official religion. Many cultures have little faith, but the influence of Christianity still affects them. In communist Russia, the influence of Christianity was intentionally extinguished, meaning we have a clear example of what society looks like in Jesus' absence. (Not to say he was absent in Spirit, but he was absent in official and measurable ways). Nicolas Zernov shows this in a table showing the number of churches, monasteries, priests, deacons, etc, before and during communism, which I've reproduced partially below [2],

............. year 1917 ............. year 1941
Churches....... 1710 ....................... 2
Monasteries..... 23 ......................... 0
Priests........... 1435 ....................... 3
Deacons........... 277 ...................... 1

The above is a negative example: it examines atheist materialism applied practically. To differentiate secular and Christian purposes, I will now present a positive example of how a nation that repents and believes in Jesus (at least in an offical sense) can grow and improve, as a result of His work in them. There was a mention of Pope Urban II earlier. No further explanation was given as to why, but I guess it was becase some people think Holy War reflects poorly on Jesus' followers. I confess I don't know enough about the Crusades to comment, but I do know a little about Holy War. If a man's motive for going to war is truly holy, that would mean that it is in the name of God, and all that God stands for. If I were going to war, I'd rather go for holy reasons than unholy reasons. For justice, not for personal glory. For freedom, not for greed. To defend the oppressed, not to defend my own abundance. Some things are worth fighting for. The participants of the American Civil War certainly thought so. While I have no intention of defending every motive for this war, I think it's common knowledge that many people fought in the name of God, precisely because they believed that He demanded emancipation. Certainly, without Christian-rooted anti-slavery sentiments, Europe may have recognized the South. European recognition was a critical part of the Confederate strategy. They needed that to become their own nation. They needed that to keep slavery. Don Doyle speaks to this in a podcast interview of one of his books[3]:

...early on they realized that whatever Lincoln said about slavery ... that there's just a kind of stubborn ... anti-slavery sentiment in Britain and in France ... "they have read Uncle Tom's Cabin, and they believe it"

... and to think of slavery as anything but a cruel, inhuman, and unChristian institution, that was hard even for moderate and conservative Europeans to swallow.

Due largely to Christ and his followers (like William Wilberforce[4] and Harriet Beecher Stowe), who had been influencing popular culture for several decades, there could be no European support. Without European recognition, there could be no Confederacy. Without Confederate secession, the issue of emancipation would not have been forced on the Union. Both North and South were guilty of a terrible collective sin. I don't argue that the nation was righteous, but that it collectively repented of its sin of oppression, and it did so as a result of God's providence. Having read Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin", I can see why any true follower of Jesus would have opposed slavery as a result of her book. It's not because Stowe was a brilliant philosopher. At that time, for a woman to have the effect on society that she did, was miraculous. She was just faithful to Jesus. Her main character, Tom, demonstrated this by being obedient to his master in spite of severe mistreatment, but by enduring great sacrifice rather than giving up his faith in Jesus. Furthermore, she did as Jesus did in criticizing the religious establishment and skeptics alike. The following excerpt demonstrates this; a conversation between two white characters[5]:

"My view of Christianity is such," he added, "that I think no man can consistently profess it without throwing the whole weight of his being against this monstrous system of injustice that lies at the foundation of all our society; and, if need be, sacrificing himself in the battle. That is, I mean that I could not be a Christian otherwise, though I have certainly had intercourse with a great many enlightened and Christian people who did no such thing; and I confess that the apathy of religious people on this subject, their want of perception of wrongs that filled me with horror, have engendered in me more scepticism than any other thing."
"If you knew all this," said Miss Ophelia, "why didn't you do it?"
"Oh, because I have had only that kind of benevolence which consists in lying on a sofa, and cursing the church and clergy for not being martyrs and confessors. One can see, you know, very easily, how others ought to be martyrs."

It was no slave rebellion that freed the American slaves (but they became free). It was no Marxist revolution that freed Russia (for Russia didn't become free). God is at work. There is a difference. It is not because of mankind's strength, intelligence, or good deeds that he overcomes his own depravity. It is because of God's undeserved grace, which he demonstrates through people no one would expect.



[1] from The Ethic of Nihilism, by Semen Frank. Part of the Vekhi collection. 1909.
[2] from The Russian Religious Renaissance. Nicolas Zernov. 1963.
[3] minute 46:28 and 50:47, from the Podcast "New Books in Military History" on 2/16/2015, featuring Don H. Doyle, "The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War" (Basic Books, 2015)
[4]http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... force.html
[5] Harriet Beecher Stowe. Uncle Tom's Cabin. 1852. (chapter 28)

[KenRU]

Concerning the point about the evolution of compassion:
The article you cited is very thorough and contains many references. Thank you for going to the trouble to read through all of that. I realize that takes effort. However, it sounds like you looked that up fairly recently,

I did.

meaning it probably wasn't the evidence that initially convinced you of your opinion.

The idea that compassion and cooperation (among other traits) help communities survive has been around for quite some time. I provided a recent article lest I be accused of providing old data : )

As for what convinced me of my opinion, well that gets a bit tricky. I am open to my opinion being wrong, does that mean I am convinced?

My education in college and from what I’ve read since has “convinced� me that traits like compassion, empathy etc have indeed arisen from evolution.

If your opinion is indeed based on evidence, it would seem to be a simple matter to merely present the evidence that convinced you of the point in the first place - no further reading required, on your part, but plenty for me to learn.

This, to me, seems like a very unfair request. You are asking me to provide evidence for something that took college courses, articles and books to help form my opinion that evolved over time.

Are you familiar with evolution? It seems to me that if you wish to know more about the subject, then that is easy enough for you to obtain without my help.

Otherwise, I am not sure of the relevance of your question, nor if it is even possible for me to answer accurately.

No need to present any more on that issue in this thread, though, since it is a bit of an side-track, but I would be interested in reading (for my own sake, not for argument) the evidence that originally convinced you of the point, if you would send source information in a PM.

As I said above, it is an opinion that has evolved over time. And one that I am not married to, if a better explanation can be provided.

The rest of this post will continue my previous sentiment (and KenRU's request) about differentiating Christian and secular purposes.

One of the reasons, I think, that some assocciate atheist materialism with purposelessness, is that secular purposes often do not logically follow from secular premises. There is difficulty in A) believing that evolution is merely the outcome of blind material forces, and B) believing that the history of mankind is inevitably leading to a realm of harmony and justice. Having observed this inconsistency among a large number of influential members of Russian society, Semen Frank found it to be a dangerous contradiction …

Thank you for the very detailed response.

On the flip side, current statistics (from 2014) show a different trend entirely:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... -societies

Consider this passage:

“Consider, for instance, the latest special report just put out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (and recently summarized on the website 24/7wallstreet.com), which lists the ten states with the worst/best quality of life. According to this multivariate analysis which takes into account a plethora of indicators of societal well-being, those states in America with the worst quality of life tend to be among the most God-loving/most religious (such as Mississippi and Alabama), while those states with the best quality of life tend to among the least God-loving/least religious (such as Vermont and New Hampshire).�

And

“The correlation is clear and strong: the more secular tend to fare better than the more religious on a vast host of measures, including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, etc. You name it: on nearly every sociological measure of well-being, you’re most likely to find the more secular states with the lowest levels of faith in God and the lowest rates of church attendance faring the best and the most religious states with the highest levels of faith in God and rates of church attendance faring the worst.�

But bringing this back to the OP: if the above statistics are to be believed, then a secular life (with self-assigned purpose) yields a far better life.

But I could be wrong and am open to more evidence and facts : )

-all the best

[Wissing]

Mark 2:16-17, ESV

And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?� And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.�

[KenRU]

Mark 2:16-17, ESV

And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?� And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.�

So you consider those secular states and societies as righteous?

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 45 by KenRU]

Did Jesus consider the Pharisees to be righteous?



Matthew 21:28-31, KJV

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

There are different definitions of righteousness.



Matthew 23:27-28, ESV

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Figures don't lie, but liars configure.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 45 by KenRU]

Did Jesus consider the Pharisees to be righteous?

I'm not sure if you are purposely ignoring my question or not. If I am to continue your analogy to its logical conclusion, the secular states are already "righteous" and need not worry of their sinful nature. That is, of course, assuming you stand by both sides of the analogy : )

Matthew 21:28-31, KJV

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

There are different definitions of righteousness.

Be that as it may, your analogy means it only one way. So, either you stand by your analogy (and the secular states are the "righteous" and the religious "sinful") or it was a throw away line and has no weight.

Matthew 23:27-28, ESV

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Figures don't lie, but liars configure.

Sounds like you are backpedaling now.

Perhaps it would serve our conversation better if you simply offered your opinion on why secular states having typically less crime than religious states?

Clearly parables and failed analogies are not making your opinion clear to me.

-all the best

[zjsd26]

the meaning of Purpose means something different to everybody. I'm a Theist (Christian) I've been one for about a year. The difficulty in this discussion, is that they are thousands of religions, theories, and belief systems. The reason why I believe the Bible, is become of it's influence, consistency and relevance that is has on our culture. Whether if it's philosophy, history, science or literature. When someone doesn't believe in God, then there purpose may be different or it could contradict with their goals, but that doesn't mean they don't have a purpose. They just do things differently and more according to their own way, instead of what God is telling them to do.

Theists/Atheists/Agnostics all have a purpose, it's just different. Many people use their family, old friends, teachers, or mentors, to help them persevere through life. We can look at life in our way objective, many people believe God will fulfill their dreams, by having strong faith and being obedient to his words, others think you have to become independent and find what fits you. So it all depends.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 3 by OnceConvinced]


"And this is the thing that I see. The only difference between a Christian and an Atheist is that the Christian believes God is the one who gave them their purposes in life."

You mean to say that Christians believe in Infinite and Eternal God, His supreme wisdom and love,
His Omipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, who opens the doors to His Abode wide open and says that whosoever will may come, and this is their purpose in life?

Not bad

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 3 by OnceConvinced]


"And this is the thing that I see. The only difference between a Christian and an Atheist is that the Christian believes God is the one who gave them their purposes in life."

You mean to say that Christians believe in Infinite and Eternal God, His supreme wisdom and love,
His Omipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, who opens the doors to His Abode wide open and says that whosoever will may come, and this is their purpose in life?

Not bad

How does this point relate to the OP? Is there a difference between a belief that god gives one's life purpose and a belief that man gives his own life purpose?