Atheism, the World, and Purpose

[Stethacanthus]

I have been an atheist for almost 11 years now and I have been asked if I feel like life is meaningless, human life is valueless, or that nothing matters countless times. I constantly get the "beauty of the universe" argument supporting belief in a deity. For me I feel those arguments are turned in the wrong direction. Personally I find more meaning to life as an atheist.

I am interested in the answers from both sides as to what the rationale is for these claims.

1) Atheist's lives must feel empty.

2) Atheists cannot hold life as valuable.

3) Atheists miss out on the beauty of the universe.

While this is an inquiry, I will likely challenge points. Please be prepared to defend statements.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1) Atheist's lives must feel empty.

Mine doesn't.

2) Atheists cannot hold life as valuable.

For naturalistic atheists, life is one's very existence. Life is also quite wonderful. What is the problem here?

3) Atheists miss out on the beauty of the universe.

Just a week or two ago I went outside in the cold and dark with binoculars to admire the beauty of the universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

There's meaning and there's what Irvin Yalom calls metameaning. The former relates to our values, or to the activities we do and have planned that give us happiness. The latter is along the lines of, "what's the meaning of having meaning?" And atheists can't answer that question but theists can: they say that God created meanings for human beings. Okay. To some degree that works really well, in the sense that God has a set of meanings of activities he can "hand down" to human beings. That might be the meaning of being religious: to have a predetermined, "ideal" set of meanings to live your life by.

But nowhere along the way does it make sense to say that atheists can't have meaning. To say this is to say they can't be happy. "Aha," the slippery theist says,"you can't really be happy unless you have *reason* to be happy, and there's no God, so..." Which really equates to, "you have to have a meaning for your meaning, or a cause of your meaning, in order for your meaning to be meaningful." Hence the slip back to metameaning to determine meaning. And that's not needed at all. Meaning is just meaning; to be happy *implies that you have a meaning* already, so asking a reason for being happy is in a sense nonsensical.

It's all a mess.

 

[jayem]

It's like the old adage that good people will do good things. Happy people will be happy. Unhappy people won't be--whether you believe in God or not. I think it's fundamentally about how your brain is wired.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure you'll get a lot of Christians to respond to this. It comes across as, "I'm happy. Tell me why I'm not and I'll tell you why you're wrong."

I am tempted to ask how long you've been an active atheist. I ask because life can be fulfilling - fulfilling for a very long time - even if one is going the wrong direction. Scientific realism was a strong motivator for me for a good 30 years. And then, Poof! It was gone in a very short period of time. I tried very hard to resuscitate the patient, but it didn't work. The result had a radical impact on my theology. It's the old "building bigger barns" parable (Luke 12).

Anyway, the reason for asking how long you've been an atheist relates to the crisis moments. It's something that I think applies to Christians as well. It's easy to say you're a Christian when life is easy, but what about when it's hard ... and it will get hard at some point (John 16:33). If someone weathers a storm and comes out the other side more convinced of their principles, then we've got something to talk about. If someone changes their principles after every storm (and I see some people here at CF who seem to do that), then I conclude they're still searching.

 

[Stethacanthus]

I'm not sure you'll get a lot of Christians to respond to this. It comes across as, "I'm happy. Tell me why I'm not and I'll tell you why you're wrong."

I am tempted to ask how long you've been an active atheist. I ask because life can be fulfilling - fulfilling for a very long time - even if one is going the wrong direction. Scientific realism was a strong motivator for me for a good 30 years. And then, Poof! It was gone in a very short period of time. I tried very hard to resuscitate the patient, but it didn't work. The result had a radical impact on my theology. It's the old "building bigger barns" parable (Luke 12).

Anyway, the reason for asking how long you've been an atheist relates to the crisis moments. It's something that I think applies to Christians as well. It's easy to say you're a Christian when life is easy, but what about when it's hard ... and it will get hard at some point (John 16:33). If someone weathers a storm and comes out the other side more convinced of their principles, then we've got something to talk about. If someone changes their principles after every storm (and I see some people here at CF who seem to do that), then I conclude they're still searching.

I appreciate out pointing out my phrasing. I did not think that it looks that way but a suppose I was wrong.

The purpose of this was to ask why such conclusions even occur to many theists.

I pointed out at the exact beginning of my post that I have been an atheist for nearly 11 years, just about half of my life. I understand exactly what you mean when you talk about people going back and forth. In '07 we lost my father to cancer and everybody turned up the theological heat on me. Surprisingly I took little to no offense to it.

 

[Stethacanthus]

Mine doesn't.



For naturalistic atheists, life is one's very existence. Life is also quite wonderful. What is the problem here?



Just a week or two ago I went outside in the cold and dark with binoculars to admire the beauty of the universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So we both see little merit to these claims. I can speculate as to why I hear them. Any insight on that?

 

[Resha Caner]

The purpose of this was to ask why such conclusions even occur to many theists.

Hmm. Isn't it obvious at the higher level? God is THE most important relationship in my life. So, consider what would happen to you if you lost the most important thing in your life. It would leave quite a hole. People assume that what would leave a hole in their life would also leave a hole in the lives of others.

Is that an answer, or are you looking for something more?

I pointed out at the exact beginning of my post that I have been an atheist for nearly 11 years, just about half of my life.

Well, you're still a yung 'un then. At your age I took offense when people gave me the "you just wait" line, but, well, you just wait.

 

[Stethacanthus]

There's meaning and there's what Irvin Yalom calls metameaning. The former relates to our values, or to the activities we do and have planned that give us happiness. The latter is along the lines of, "what's the meaning of having meaning?" And atheists can't answer that question but theists can: they say that God created meanings for human beings. Okay. To some degree that works really well, in the sense that God has a set of meanings of activities he can "hand down" to human beings. That might be the meaning of being religious: to have a predetermined, "ideal" set of meanings to live your life by.

But nowhere along the way does it make sense to say that atheists can't have meaning. To say this is to say they can't be happy. "Aha," the slippery theist says,"you can't really be happy unless you have *reason* to be happy, and there's no God, so..." Which really equates to, "you have to have a meaning for your meaning, or a cause of your meaning, in order for your meaning to be meaningful." Hence the slip back to metameaning to determine meaning. And that's not needed at all. Meaning is just meaning; to be happy *implies that you have a meaning* already, so asking a reason for being happy is in a sense nonsensical.

It's all a mess.

That's the answer I approached as well. Even so I am interested in seeing if it actually gets challenged because the reasoning has to be somewhere. Contrary to what some of the other atheists around me, I do not think that they are entirely irrational. I am interested because to me it is a question I have yet to hear an answer to in discussion with a theist..

 

[Tinker Grey]

Meta-meaning? Mu.

 

[KCfromNC]

The purpose of this was to ask why such conclusions even occur to many theists.

Because religious leaders like to scare believers into thinking all sorts of bad things will happen if the stop believing. Crushing existential angst. Multi-state crime sprees. Voting democrat. Dancing. You know, all sorts of stuff that good upstanding people would never want to be part of. The more their leaders can convince the flock that danger like that lies in questioning their beliefs, the easier it is to keep the collection plates full.

 

[Stethacanthus]

Hmm. Isn't it obvious at the higher level? God is THE most important relationship in my life. So, consider what would happen to you if you lost the most important thing in your life. It would leave quite a hole. People assume that what would leave a hole in their life would also leave a hole in the lives of others.

Is that an answer, or are you looking for something more?



Well, you're still a yung 'un then. At your age I took offense when people gave me the "you just wait" line, but, well, you just wait.

That is an understandable answer.

Not offended at all. Honestly who knows what I'll be like later on in life? Not holding my breath though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am tempted to ask how long you've been an active atheist.

Perhaps 20 years from when I first called myself an atheist, but maybe 5 more years before that when I thought of myself as an agnostic but was technically an atheist. So, let's say 20-25 years.

So, at what point does your claim become falsified? My father almost certainly died an atheist, and he lived to his late seventies. There are plenty of people who die atheists. And why don't Christians (even born again Christians) who become atheists count as evidence that Christianity is unfulfilling?

I ask because life can be fulfilling - fulfilling for a very long time - even if one is going the wrong direction.

Perhaps so, but some Christians may be going in the wrong direction. I know that I was going in the wrong direction as a Christian, and I felt more fulfilled as an atheist. *shrug*

Scientific realism was a strong motivator for me for a good 30 years. And then, Poof! It was gone in a very short period of time.

Scientific realism is not much when it comes to meaning in life. I would never focus on metaphysics for meaning.

Anyway, the reason for asking how long you've been an atheist relates to the crisis moments.

Crisis moments for me included the death of my parents, who I loved, which I faced with a calm and clean honesty. I related well to those crisis moments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's meaning and there's what Irvin Yalom calls metameaning.

Actually, I do have metameaning, not as an "atheist", but as a eudaimonist. My philosophy recognizes a natural human good that makes certain values and virtues desirable, and not merely desired. But I'll agree that many atheists might not have a metameaning.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

So we both see little merit to these claims. I can speculate as to why I hear them. Any insight on that?

In my experience in talking with Christians, they seem to have a stumbling block regarding means-end reasoning regarding values. They say that if life is not endless then life can't have meaning, because the ends give the means meaning, and if there is no unbroken chain of means-to-ends into infinity, then nothing that happens now can matter.

They fail to understand that activities can be ends-in-themselves and complete in the moment. IOWs, an activity doesn't have to be a purely instrumental means to a future end, but can be a constitutive means to an end that is taking place right now. That means that even a finite life can be fully an end, the meaning of which isn't erased by death.

Modern Western culture tends to have a strong future-orientation. I'm not certain why that is. It could be in part due to Christianity's influence on Western culture, in which people live for Heaven, since this life is often seen as merely an unpleasant preliminary activity, like a test one has to pass where all one can look forward to is graduation and freedom. Some Christians even wait for Armageddon or the Rapture, seeing it lurking around every corner.

When people live for tomorrow instead of (at least occasionally) today, there is bound to be problems with thinking about meaning.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

And why don't Christians (even born again Christians) who become atheists count as evidence that Christianity is unfulfilling?

I wasn't trying to single out atheism with my questions. I simply used that because the person to whom the question was addressed was an atheist.

From the position of intellectual honesty, of course I must allow for such cases as you mention above. But honesty also means being as true as I can to what I profess. So, I can't profess Christianity on the one hand and then say I believe atheism can be fulfilling on the other hand. Rather, my belief is that what you see as fulfillment is something that won't be sustained.

So, our views differ. That shouldn't be a big surprise.