Modern analytic philosophy of religion, so it seems, is largely dominated by purely theoretical and evidential considerations. That is, the question of whether or not theistic belief is rational is decided purely on the balance of total available public evidence as opposed to existential and pragmatic considerations. The addition of the term “public” to the last sentence is significant in that it exactly specifies the brand of evidence focussed on in academic philosophy of religion. That is, evidence available to all people as opposed to that available only to some. Clearly this generalization of academic philosophy of religion is not universally true (sans Plantinga, Alston, Wolterstorff, Flannagan et al), nevertheless it remains largely true that the prevailing attitude within the philosophical academy is that the rationality of theistic belief is tied, almost exclusively, to the total public evidence a person has.
However, I generally regard this perspective on religious epistemology as flawed. There doesn’t seem much reason to limit the question of whether or not theistic belief is rational to solely evidential considerations. Furthermore, it would employ demonstrably double standards in our reasoning to require that the rationality of theistic belief be determined by reference solely to evidential considerations while other rational beliefs remain immune to such scrutiny. Why, for example, should we subject the rationality of our belief in God to any greater scrutiny than we do to our belief that our cognitive faculties give us true ideas about reality?
With that in mind, we also need to ask why it is that we should exclude existential/pragmatic considerations from determining whether or not theistic belief is rational. It is this that my article principally concerns itself with, i.e. whether or not existential/pragmatic considerations can confer warrant or justification on our theistic belief. Can the question of “liveability”, by which I refer to our ability to live consistently and happily within that worldview, confer justification on that belief? Framed negatively, the question is “can the “unliveability” (by which I refer to a general inability to live consistently and happily within that worldview) of a worldview count against that system?”
It seems at least intuitively plausible that, aside from evidentiary considerations, the “liveability” of a possible worldview is a fairly major existential concern we have when deciding upon which to adopt. When I refer to “liveability”, I refer to our ability to live in such a way as to harmonize our worldview with other concerns in life such as happiness. Furthermore, it should seem at least intuitively plausible that where we lack determinate public evidence one way or the other, it is positively irrational to choose that worldview which is ultimately unliveable. For instance, suppose that on one worldview, if we live our lives consistently (that is to its logical consequences) then we can’t be happy. Suppose further, that in order to be happy on that worldview, we must delude ourselves and others. Suppose once again, that on another worldview we wouldn’t need to engage in such grand delusion in order to be happy. Suppose finally, that the total available public evidence between the two is ultimately indeterminate. In such a situation, it makes no sense whatsoever to go with that worldview which makes no sense of our common sense intuition by requiring us to delude ourselves and others in order to be happy. If we possess no reason to abandon our intuition, then quite simply we shouldn’t! Firstly, if such a move were permissible it would give us a reason to abandon other “intuitions” such as the one which states that our sense perception is reliable. Secondly, to ignore our intuition without sufficient reason involves an unjustified denial of the self, a veritable suicide.
However, don’t mistake what I’m saying here. It is possible, at least in principle, for evidential considerations to overturn considerations in favor of “liveability”. That is, where we possess determinate public evidence in favour of that worldview which ultimately denies us the ability to live a life that is consistently happy, then we have a reason to abandon our common sense intuition. However, it is incumbent upon the proponent of the “unliveable” worldview to provide us with sufficient reason to abandon our commonsense intuition.
In-fact, if we suppose that there is an ambiguity of the total available evidence one way or the other, the most rational thing to do is to go with that worldview which gives us the greatest chance of living consistently and happily. In-fact, if we don’t have sufficient reason as to why we should abandon our intuition, it seems to be positively irrational to choose a worldview within which we can’t live consistently and happily. Within meta-ethics, and in establishing the prima facie reliability of our cognitive faculties, this line of reasoning (which as it happens is based on a weak foundationalism) is generally regarded as the only way to establish the reliability of those faculties. Hence if my reasoning with respect to happiness is unacceptable, then so is the reasoning which permits us to establish the rationality of our belief in an objective moral reality, or for that matter in the reliability of our cognitive faculties.
My principle concern then, is to show two things: 1. On Atheism, we cannot live our lives consistently and happily and 2. On theism we can live our lives happily and consistently. Hence, if successful, my argument has the effect that in the absence of determinate evidence one way or the other, theism should win out as the most rational option to choose.
Purpose as a condition for a happy life:
It seems that whenever we act, we do so for some purpose or to achieve some state of affairs that would ultimately make the world better if said state of affairs obtained. It is to say that there is some way in which the world is ultimately supposed to be. Philosophical Hedonism offers a good example of this kind of reasoning. On Hedonism, pleasure is equated with living a happy life and as such becomes the ultimate goal of all action. It essentially seems to be saying that our purpose for living is to maximise our total net pleasure. Put differently, it says that the world is supposed to be such that all people can maximise their pleasurable experiences. Now I’m not going to assess the pros and cons of Philosophical Hedonism (although ultimately I regard it as insufficient to account for a good life). But what I will say is that Hedonism reveals the fact that some ultimate goal or purpose (in its case pleasure) is a necessary aspect of living a good life. It seems difficult to make much sense out of the claim that life can be enjoyed in the absence of such a purpose. For in the absence of such a purpose, there is no way in which the world is supposed to be and by extension no reason to think that the world ought to be in such that we can enjoy our lives.
Why purpose cannot exist within an atheistic ontology:
Within an atheistic worldview, we cannot live our lives in a consistent and happy way. When I say that we live our lives in a “consistent” way, I refer to our ability to live out our worldview to its logical consequences. When I refer to a life that is lived “consistently and happily”, I refer to the compatibility of a happy life with the logical consequences of our worldview. This contention is twofold: a) If we are atheists, and we live out that worldview to its logical consequence, then we cannot be happy. b) If we are atheists and we live our lives happily, then we cannot be living out our worldview to its logical consequence.
On atheism, so it seems, there can be no ultimate meaning to life. As the universe winds down towards total entropic equilibrium, so too will it wind down towards an inevitable heat death. As the Universe continues to expand into eternity, so will it grow forever darker, forever colder until nothing will be left but a gas so thin that the sub-atomic particles of the tiniest atom will be separated by the distance of a galaxy. Regardless of how we presently act, the Universe will remain indifferent. If we live our lives one way, the Universe will face death. If we live another way, the Universe will face death. In the end, it will make no qualitative difference to the Universe whether we live the lives of a saint or the lives of a Hitler. It seems then that death is at least one of the aspects of an atheistic ontology which would make such a life absurd/devoid of purpose. But if an atheistic ontology can make no sense of purpose, what then of our happiness? You’ll recall that earlier I argued that for a life to be considered “happy”, it required the cognizance of some objective purpose or way in which the world is supposed to be. But if atheism makes no sense of purpose, then if we are atheists and we live out that worldview to its logical consequent, then quite simply we cannot be happy. This point is fundamental to my over-arching argument. Because it shows that if someone professes to believe that atheism is true, and yet he is happy, then that person is not living his worldview consistently. He has mistakenly convinced himself that somehow his worldview is consistent with the idea that life has a purpose, because the existence of that purpose is ultimately what makes his life enjoyable.
Of course it might be rejoined that my claim regarding the purpose of life on atheism depends on the faulty assumption that only death makes life absurd. It might be pointed out that Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” countermands this contention by showing us that nothing could be more absurd than an eternity of continuously trying to push a massive boulder to the top of a hill. But this response seems to confuse what I’m really saying. This rejoinder relies on the assumption that my position is that an eternal life is singularly sufficient to make that life meaningful. This is not my position. Rather, my position is that eternal life is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a meaningful life. For a life to be meaningful there must ultimately be something else i.e. a purpose to our existence, a reason for being. But if atheism fails on this point, then what about most forms of theism? Most forms of theism, particularly Christian theism contend that the ultimate purpose in life is to know God and enjoy Him forever. Such a theology, so it would seem, is sufficient to facilitate a life with an objective purpose. This has the interesting effect of ruling out most “sparse” forms Deism as viable options. This is because on such forms of Deism, God ultimately remains indifferent to human affairs. It should seem clear that Gods indifference is not compatible with there being a purpose in the sense that I’v talked about because in the end it wouldn’t matter which way we act. Of course it might be pointed out that some people that we might refer to as “deists” (namely Lord Herbert of Chedbury and William Wollaston) have held that the soul survives death and is rewarded or punished by God based on their behavior in life. If this is what we mean when we talk about “deism”, I am willing to concede that my argument is compatible with it.
Of course it might be said that we can make our own purpose in life. That we can simply invent a reason for our existence and that this would suffice to make our lives ultimately happy. This, it seems to me, is tantamount to saying that we ought to delude ourselves! It’s the same as saying “well ultimately there is no purpose, but we’ll fool ourselves into thinking that there is such a purpose”. This point brings me to another interesting point. If we must delude ourselves in order to be happy, then it seems that we’re committing a form of “suicide”. We’re denying ourselves (unjustifiably I might add) our fundamentally human desire to know the truth. Furthermore, if we know that there is no purpose in life, then how are we to sustain the delusion? The more you are aware of the absence of purpose, the less you can deceive yourself into thinking that there is purpose! Even if you don’t admit it, at some level you will always know that there is no purpose to our existence.
But if there is an ambiguity of the public evidence for and against theism then it seems that we don’t have a reason to engage in such gratuitous self delusion. If there is such an ambiguity then, in accord with concern for happiness, it seems positively reasonable to make a leap of faith into God. This leap of faith is not at all analogous to an irrational, illogical Kierkegaardean leap into a God which ultimately offends logic. Rather, it says that since we don’t possess a reason to ignore our concern for “liveability”, and since some form of theism is most “liveable”, then theism ultimately is the most rational option.
Agnosticism, so it would seem, does not fare much better than atheism in the analysis. It is to essentially suspend judgement on whether or not one ought to be honestly happy.
Objections:
As I have proceeded I have dealt with a few possible objections that might arise. But there are some which would question the initial method and as such cannot be answered within the main body of the article. Below I have tried to elaborate on a few possible objections and then respond to them as best I can.
Inevitably someone will end up telling me that my argument engages in wishful thinking. But if such people look closely they will notice that I have been sufficiently clear as to avoid that charge. Suppose the available public evidence in favour of atheism was determinate. That is, it clearly came down on the side of atheism as opposed to theism. Suppose further, that regardless of this “determinate evidence”, someone continued to believe in God on the basis that it made him happy. Then (and only then) would the argument engage in wishful thinking! But my argument doesn’t deal with that situation. I have never denied the fact that evidential considerations can, in principle, overwhelm existential/pragmatic considerations. Hence to complain that my argument suffers from wishful thinking would truly show that you haven’t read my article thoroughly.
Perhaps a possible re-capitulation of the “wishful thinking” charge would be to say that one cannot determine something about reality simply by thinking that it would be nice if it were true. Now I can certainly agree that the truth or falsity of existential propositions can’t be determined by reference only to what we think would be nice. But notice, my argument doesn’t at all resemble the claim that we can know something to be true simply because we’d like it to be that way. Rather, my argument has to do, not with the truth of theistic belief, but with the warrant or intrinsic justification for theistic belief. The difference between “truth” and “justification” is made clear by the fact that we can reach true conclusions by faulty inference. For example, suppose I flip a coin and get a “heads”. Suppose that I infer (from getting that “heads”) that it’s raining in Moscow right now. Now it may very well be the case that in-fact it’s raining in Moscow right now. But quite clearly, my means of determining it (i.e. a coin toss) provide me with no justification for the belief that it is. So there is a clear distinction between “justification” and “truth”. This article concerns itself primarily with the justification for theistic belief.
Tags: Atheism · Happiness · The Presumption of Theism · Theism · Worldview analysis87 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
[…] The Presumption of Theism | MandM […]
So, how do you get from a general theism to a specific theism like Christianity ?
What I’ve read seems like a good defence of any theistic view so as an ex-Pagan I could use it to defend the Pagan faith against a Christian who decides to try to disprove it.
@Paul,
You’re quite right to point out that this argument doesn’t take us to any specific form of theism. But taking us that far was never the intent of the argument. Rather, the idea was to take us only as far as what you have correctly called a “general theism”.
In that sense you’re also right in that it could be used to defend ANY given theistic view. It is not “essentially” Christian.
Of course you have to keep in mind that this argument is still instrumentally valuable to the Christian apologist in that “Christianity” without theism is not Christianity.
If you want to get to Christianity, then I might recommend reading NT Wright’s rather massive book entitled “The Resurrection of the Son of God”. It’s really rather good…exhaustive even.
@ Andrew:
Thanks for the book recommendation.
However, I think that this shows a problem with Christianity as a specific theism in that while philosophically you can argue that there is a non-specific deity, in order to then argue for a specific one the Christian has to start using some of the atheistic methodology to disprove non-Christian faiths, as well as arguing for the Christian faith.
Or am I missing something ?
@Paul,
Atheist methodology? you’re not clear on what you mean. There doesn’t seem to be much that’s essentially “atheistic” about the historical method or certain modes of induction (the tools typically used to argue for the Resurrection of Christ)
In any event, i’m not certain that this has any particular bearing on the subject of the post.
Andrew, it sounds like Paul is using the “its arbitrary to reject some gods but not others” line.
The problem is it assumes, that whatever reasons one has for rejecting some other god will apply with equal force to a Christian understanding of God. The example you provide falsifies this claim, you point out the arguments of N T Wright for the historicity of the ressurection. Now if one can establish historically that YHVH rose Jesus from the dead, and the account of Jesus in the gospels is accurate, then one has reasons for rejecting non Christian gods which do not apply to a Christian one.
There also can be problems peculiar to particular understandings of god which do not apply to other understandings, if one rejected a particular understanding of deity on the basis of such arguments it would not follow you had to reject all.
@Matt,
Nail head…meet hammer!
To complain, for instance, that the cosmological argument is invalid because it doesn’t prove Christian theism would border on a category mistake!
Dialectically speaking, it’s hard to argue for the Resurrection if your audience doesn’t already believe in God!
@ Matt & Andrew:
Ok, let’s make it easy – I’m a Pagan. I don’t give two figs for the historicity argument for Jesus (which justifies your faith). Show me that my faith is in error without employing the scepticism of an atheist.
@ Andrew:
“To complain, for instance, that the cosmological argument is invalid because it doesn’t prove Christian theism would border on a category mistake!”
That would be a presumptious post I take it ? Have I made such a point ?
@Paul,
I never claimed that you claimed that the cosmological argument was invalid because it didn’t prove Christian theism. The point of my last comment (and most of my other foregoing comments) was really a product of my confusion by your point that the argument contained in the above article did not prove Christianity. I’v already admitted that it’s goal is not to do so.
In short, we’re not discussing the truth claims of any given theology here. For me to engage in a discussion as to why I think your pagan beliefs are false would be detracting from the purpose of this post would it not? If you find the argument I present above wanting, then post on that. So far as I know, the title of the post is not “why are Paul Bairds pagan beliefs false?”.
In any event, part of the reason I recommended NT Wrights monumental book “The Resurrection of the Son of God”, is because if Wrights arguments are successful, they would be sufficient to show the falsity of non Christian concepts of God (as Matt has already pointed out)
@ Paul,
For all you’ve written so far, it’s not clear that you agree with the argument that I have offered above.
But then again, if your a pagan, you might very well agree with me on the merits of the argument that i’v offered above. I really can’t tell.
Rather than deigning to join the conversation, you’ve tried to hijack it and turn it into a discussion of your pagan beliefs.
@ Andrew:
Thanks for your responses – I’m no hijacker. I was just trying to see where your line of argument leads to from a non-Christian perspective.
I’m quite happy with it as it stands – ok, there’s a generic God.
Whoopee. Everybody is a happy camper.
My point – convoluted as it appeared to be – is that we don’t stop there. Perhaps it would be better if we did.
Andrew,
How can you explain the upsurge of religious indifferentism in the atlantic states as well as missional countries that once were exploding with converts only to be lost to commercial or professional causes (e.g. Korea)? Its true you pointed out that Atheism does not have an ultimate meaning to life. But it seems that the vast majority of people in the developed world and you could even see it also in people groups that were raised up in a totalitarian or traditional state are oblivious to even ponder the overrarching questions of existence as far as it does not affect their immediate well-being and satisfaction.
Looking at the mid-east now and christendom back then in the 1700’s. I can see parallels of countries transferring their identity from a divine transcendental viewpoint (God) to an immanentist one (Country) Its beginning to seriously challenge the Islamic revolution that was popular in the 70’s. But you really cannot deny that meaning borne from God was often associated with indifference to earthly goods and social welfare.
Its no surprise then that lots of people don’t have time for the God question, when they have questions on how to pay the bills, the rent, the kids? Much more important and proximate to their needs. Their not card-carrying atheists either
Thank you for your article. I enjoyed reading it and it got me to thinking. While I am in sympathy with what I perceive to be your intent, I think you may be a little off track. You say, “There doesn’t seem much reason to limit the question of whether or not theistic belief is rational to solely evidential considerations.” I think you may want to jettison your use of the term “rational.” Rationality is a title conferred by a community. What’s rational in a polygamous compound in Utah, USA isn’t going to be considered so in the next community over.
I think you are essentially saying that you don’t like the program of contemporary Philosophy of Religion, which is well and good, but if CPR is an evidence game, then it’s an evidence game. And if religious belief cannot be successfully defended in that game, then a defender of religious belief would be best to quit it and find a better avenue for religious expression. I’m a Christian and have been struggling with reconciling evidence based pursuits with Christian faith, and am leaning more to a peaceful truce between the two. My belief needs no grounding. That‘s what faith is. And, paradoxically to some, that’s what makes is unique, strong, and beautiful.
Again, thanks for the article. It’s been a while since I worked my philosophy muscle.
PS. I’ve been out of Philosophy since 1993 so I may have no idea what I’m talking about 😉
Andrew, excuse me for skimming your article, but the main gist of it seems to be that you are saying that without a purpose in life, people cannot truly be happy, therefore we need religion to fill a need.
Several objections come to my mind with this philosophy:
– I do not see how “knowing God and enjoying Him forever” is really any different from Hedonism, once you’ve met God. So I disagree that “enjoying God forever” leaves you with a purpose.
– I don’t see how the universe’s heat death is relevant to any atheist’s ultimate goal. The universe’s heat death (if it exists) is so far off, as to be not relevant at all to any person’s personal experience. It is more coherent to argue that the goal of an atheist life is to be perfectly “happy”, a state which is unattainable – and therefore gives a lifetime purpose (and can therefore never be achieved, but is this actually relevant to the argument?)
– You’re also forgetting that humans did not always live in this age of plenty. In the past, people spent most of their lives struggling against cold, to get enough food to eat, and to just survive day to day. It is this goal, of survival, that humans have spent thousands of years striving for, and this is the ultimate purpose.
You also ask:
“Why, for example, should we subject the rationality of our belief in God to any greater scrutiny than we do to our belief that our cognitive faculties give us true ideas about reality?”
Well, because there is clear evidence that our cognitive faculties DO give us true ideas about reality – or at least, ideas that are correct enough to enable us to make decisions about reality that let us live in it. If they didn’t, we would all die pretty smartly, and be unable to make any progress in it!
I really think it’s self-fulfilling to say that we can believe in a god based on pragmatic grounds, because humans seem to need a purpose in life to be happy (debateable), and that religion gives that purpose (debateable), and atheism doesn’t (debateable). I would definitely agree that religion does give a purpose in life – it’s certainly difficult to reach a concrete conclusion with a god that doesn’t exist, and hence would give you a lifelong quest – but that doesn’t mean that it is the only purpose possible. For instance, trying to make religious believers see that God isn’t real (whether or not this is actually the case or not) is a lifelong goal and can give purpose to a life, as long as there are religious believers. From your argument, I don’t see how this is any less fulfilling than the life goal you have presented.
You also said:
“There doesn’t seem much reason to limit the question of whether or not theistic belief is rational to solely evidential considerations. ”
Just because something (e.g. belief in a god) appears to be pragmatic, doesn’t make it true. It’s like saying “I’ve come up with an hypothesis for an experiment. The confirmation of the hypothesis appears to be a pragmatic solution.” But we all know that this doesn’t actually prove anything. Hence, after pragmatic considerations, there don’t seem to be any reasons NOT to limit the question of whether or not theistic belief is rational to solely evidential considerations.
The Presumption of Theism…
to ignore our intuition without sufficient reason involves an unjustified denial of the self, a veritable suicide… FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>> The Presumption of Theism | MandM…
@Alvin,
I am still confused as to the relevance of your comments. So there are people for whom it is not pragmatic to ask these questions, does that prove anything with respect to my argument itself?
It doesn’t challenge any of the premises, it doesn’t challenge whether or not the conclusion follows. So unfortunately i’d have to deem it irrelevant.
@Howard,
Rationality is not something that is, as you say, conferred by a group. The definition of the term “rational belief” that I use is essentially taken to mean fulfilling your epistemic duties. If you haven’t fulfilled your epistemic duties then your belief isn’t rational. This isn’t something that’s conferred by a group. If that were the case, it wouldn’t be possible to have something that was objectively “rational”.
Clint,
I will start by politely asking you to read my article in full. Because it seems like your objections are based on bits and bobs that have been ripped out of their original context
You characterized my argument as follows:
“Without a purpose in life, people cannot truly be happy, therefore we need religion to fill a need”
In-fact that’s not what i’v said. What i’v said is that we have an intuitive existential concern for “consistent happiness”. And while atheism makes no sense of this intuition, theism does. If the evidence between atheism and theism is ultimately indeterminate, then we don’t have a reason to ignore this intuition. Hence theism makes the most rational sense to pick since it best makes sense of our intuitions.
“– I do not see how “knowing God and enjoying Him forever” is really any different from Hedonism, once you’ve met God. So I disagree that “enjoying God forever” leaves you with a purpose.”
First of all, I don’t see how the latter half of the statement follows from the former half of the statement. Second of all, “knowing God and enjoying him forever” certainly does provide us with a purpose. It says that knowledge and enjoyment of God is the end of all action on a worldview. Lastly, the example that I gave of hedonism is illustrative. I wasn’t trying to knock it down or anything. I was simply trying to show how life require the cognizance of purpose to be enjoyed.
“I don’t see how the universe’s heat death is relevant to any atheist’s ultimate goal. The universe’s heat death (if it exists) is so far off, as to be not relevant at all to any person’s personal experience. It is more coherent to argue that the goal of an atheist life is to be perfectly “happy”, a state which is unattainable – and therefore gives a lifetime purpose (and can therefore never be achieved, but is this actually relevant to the argument?)”
You’re right, the heat death of the universe, by itself is not relevant. The relevant point is this. IF atheism is true, then regardless of what transpires on earth, this will occur. Whether we live the life of a Saint or the life of a Dictator, this will occur regardless. Such a worldview does not offer purpose. Contrast that with theism which holds that even once we die there are consequences for our actions.
“Why, for example, should we subject the rationality of our belief in God to any greater scrutiny than we do to our belief that our cognitive faculties give us true ideas about reality?”
Well, because there is clear evidence that our cognitive faculties DO give us true ideas about reality”
How does it at all follow from that we ought to subject one faculty to any more scrutiny than another? it doesn’t! it’s a non sequitur that doesn’t even begin to answer the question i pose!
Not to mention the evidential proof that your statements:
1. On Atheism, we cannot live our lives consistently and happily
Is false, and
2. On theism we can live our lives happily and consistently.
Is true, but only because of the word “can”. There are certainly theists who don’t live their lives happily and consistently.
Clint 1.2,
“I really think it’s self-fulfilling to say that we can believe in a god based on pragmatic grounds, because humans seem to need a purpose in life to be happy (debateable), and that religion gives that purpose (debateable), and atheism doesn’t (debateable).”
Again, you’re merely caricaturing my argument here. Might I once again recommend that you actually READ my article rather than simply skimming it as you confess? Because your caricature doesn’t at all resemble what i’v argued for. What i’v argued, is that we have an inherent concern for “consistent happiness” and that while theism makes sense of this, atheism does not. In any event, if it’s debatable that happiness in life needs a purpose, then debate it! i’v argued for it in the article above. Second of all, i’v argued in previous comments why it is that theism (not religion, there’s a distinction) offers a purpose in life.
“Just because something (e.g. belief in a god) appears to be pragmatic, doesn’t make it true.”
This comment just shows all the more that you didn’t read my article in any great depth! you merely skimmed over it and arrogantly assumed you had mastered it! READ THE ARTICLE…FULLY! because i deal specifically with this claim! I don’t argue that this makes theism true, I it makes theism most JUSTIFIED. Now for anyone with a rudimentary understanding of epistemology (which clearly you don’t) the difference between justification and truth is clear. After all, a false belief (if it’s not known to be false) can be the most justified belief.
“1. On Atheism, we cannot live our lives consistently and happily
Is false”
As it presently stands Clint, this is a mere assertion. You need to provide some substantiation. I have offered argument for it in the article yet you continually fail to actually engage with it as it stands. Instead, you seem content to put up caricatures and strawmen
“There are certainly theists who don’t live their lives happily and consistently”
This does nothing to damage my argument. Certainly there are theists who don’t live their lives consistently and happily. But that only proves that there are people who can live their lives in counter-intuitive ways. I’m saying that their worldview ALLOWS them to live their worldview consistently even if they in-fact don’t.
READ THE ARGUMENT…FULLY
@Andrew
But aren’t you begging the question at hand? By what criteria do we judge who is rational? The scientist with a solar telescope or the sun worshiper?
Andrew, I know that the Christian worldview ALLOWS people to live their lives fully and happily, I said that in the first place.
You too made a mere assertion, by saying that atheists cannot live their lives happily with their worldview. The fact that I am one, and the fact that I know many others who do, is testimony to the fact that your assertion is wrong. Hence it is not a mere assertion of mine.
Sorry Andrew, yes you’re right, I was wrong about my interpretation of Hedonism in your discussion. So you say that hedonism provides a purpose in life, but is not sufficient for a “good life”, because it doesn’t provide meaning – “For a life to be meaningful there must ultimately be something else i.e. a purpose to our existence, a reason for being.”
I would agree on a personal level that people without purpose lose their way and are not happy. However, you’ve only made an assertion that we must find meaning in our lives based on what we think will happen after our deaths, and this must relate to the overall fate of the universe (or God/heaven). I have purposes in my own life, and they relate to my life – not to after my death. They are still purposes, and I still live for them, and they make me happy. And this is certainly the case for many other atheists I know. This counters the basis of your argument that only theism can make sense of our apparent intuitive existential concern for “consistent happiness”.
Would you agree therefore that it follows from your argument that theists would be significantly happier in general than non-theists, if you are correct?
@ Clint,
“You too made a mere assertion, by saying that atheists cannot live their lives happily with their worldview. ”
No, mine is not a “mere” assertion. Mine is an assertion backed up by an argument in the article itself.
“The fact that I am one, and the fact that I know many others who do, is testimony to the fact that your assertion is wrong.”
My argument is quite consistent with there being atheists that are happy. However, as of yet you have not argued against my point that happiness requires the cognizance of some purpose in life. Additionally, you have not argued against my point that theism best makes the most sense of this purpose in life whereas atheism doesn’t. So presently, the fact that you’re an atheist and happy, simply shows me that you’re not living your worldview in a way which is consistent with what it permits.
“Would you agree therefore that it follows from your argument that theists would be significantly happier in general than non-theists, if you are correct?”
No, I wouldn’t agree that this follows from my argument. I’m certain that there are atheists who are far happier in their lives than I am. That’s not the point. The point is that such people are not living consistently with what their worldview permits. I argue (in the article itself) that atheism, when lived consistently, does not permit happiness. So that if an atheist is to live consistently with that view, he can’t be happy. Conversely, if an atheist is to live happily, then he can’t be living it consistently.
This position is quite compatible with there being unhappy theists. It’s even compatible with a situation wherein the number of sad theists vastly outnumbers the number of happy atheists. However, such an situation only shows that such people aren’t living consistently with what their worldview permits. The human psyche is a strange thing!
“I have purposes in my own life, and they relate to my life – not to after my death.”
Sure. You have your own purpose in life, I don’t doubt that. Nevertheless, an atheistic worldview does not permit this purpose. What you’ve essentially done is invent your own purpose. As it happens, i’v already argued this in the article itself. So rather than re-iterating that here, i’ll turn you instead what the article itself.
As for your point regarding the purpose of life in heaven. What I have in-fact argued is as follows:
1. Atheism has insufficient metaphysical machinery to account for the purpose of life
2. Theism has sufficient metaphysical machinery to account for the purpose of life.
I don’t view the current perspective on the rationality as flawed but appreciate that it may never provide a deterministic answer and think I understand what you are looking to add to it in the way of pragmatism.
Currently I’ve been unhappy with the evidential considerations and public evidence put forward for Christianity. This has increasingly pushed me into an agnostic position at which point the pragmatic considerations you raise have become increasingly important.
Should I continue and can I be happy in agnosticism (or atheism if it goes that far)? I suppose that is the same question you’re looking to answer – “…can the un-liveability of a worldview count against that system?”
There are a few questions…
Do you see your theory as a development of Pascal’s wager?
Ultimately, why does one assume that rationality requires both consistency and happiness?
Within an athiest world view with no ultimate metaphysical purpose, there may be both allot of rationality, consistency and a lot of unhappiness. Does this unhappiness mean that this world view is irrational or just unlivable? I’ve been listening to some of Marylin Adams theories on evil and optimism which are similar to your own. She argues that confronted with the evil in the world an optimistic atheist is delusional. She maintains that only a theistic world view allows for consistency and optimism in this case.
http://www.philosophybites.libsyn.com/category/Marilyn%20Adams
One could say that within a theist world view the world could still be destroyed but eternal life and knowing God remain. Therefore, is purposeful human action in your opinion then directed not at making the world a better place but to personally knowing God?
Does eternal life form an essential component of purpose in your theory? One could imagine as a theist that a moment in God’s presence and knowing Him could be enough to provide purpose for a happy life.
Does knowing God need to be an essential component of purpose in your theory? In Romans 9:1-5, Paul admirably and unselfishly desires to give up that purpose in order to save others.
In my case, it could go either way and for me the evidential considerations are stacked up against theism and my faith is the Kierkegaardean leap that requires the maintenance of faith against reason (inconsistent happy). The only thing stopping me from leaping back is the (delusion of?) purpose that you describe, but the more i read, the more this is eroded and I’m afraid there is not much difference between the two positions for me any longer ie. the arguments for purpose are also ambiguous.
Andrew, I don’t understand on what basis you can prove that a happy atheist (for example, it’s easiest for me) is living inconsistently with their worldview. I believe you are asserting that no atheist can be happy, and consistent, with their worldview. But in doing so, you must be totally sure that the person in question thinks that their worldview is an essentially unhappy one. If they don’t believe that, then they are not being inconsistent with it. For instance, I don’t believe that the my life has no meaning, just because the universe will eventually end in heat death. My life has meaning to those around me in the meantime.
Contrary to what you said in your last post, an atheistic worldview enables one to apply whatever purpose the person wants to their life, and be consistently fulfilled and made happy by it. I realise that this is a different purpose in concept to the theist, and I fully agree with you that theists imagine a personal goal that is greater than their own lives (and many people may therefore deem this purpose much more worthy – only if God exists, though!). But whether or not someone finds a goal fulfilling or not is subjective; it’s about as subjective as it gets. Hence I don’t see there is any way you can prove that non-theists are living inconsistently with their worldview.
“Ok, let’s make it easy – I’m a Pagan. I don’t give two figs for the historicity argument for Jesus (which justifies your faith). Show me that my faith is in error without employing the scepticism of an atheist.”
While does a skeptical argument against a pagan deity have to be “skepticism of the atheist”?. Suppose you have a concept of god which is contradictory or contrary to known facts, or which is contrary to facts I accept as true. Why does pointing this out make me an athiest?.
Andrew, it has also struck me that your argument is very strongly biased due your theistic beliefs. It is generally critical to theists’ beliefs that their lives have no meaning without consideration what will happen after they die; it is often drummed into them from a young age. Non-theists do not have this presumption; they assume that when their body dies, they will have no further direct influence on the universe (or wherever a theist might think they will go). Hence, it isn’t a disappoinment to the non-theist that when their life ends, that’s it. Hence, non-theists don’t grow up thinking that the lack of an afterlife means that their lives are devoid of meaning.
Sorry that should have read “It is generally critical to theists’ beliefs that their life’s meaning is determined by what will happen after they die”. Got that very wrong.
@John,
I appreciate your respect. What’s more, is that you actually seem to have read my article (which is more than I could say for other commentators). That I also appreciate! 🙂
However, there are a few misunderstanding that I think you have which we need to clear up. For the sake of clarity, i’ll quote what you say. I hope you don’t take offence at this, I simply wish to be clear about the point i’m addressing.
Throughout your comment, you made remarks about Christianity. I think you’re wrongly assuming that i’m trying to prove Christianity here. I’m not. This is something I made clear early in the discussion with Paul Baird. This argument can essentially be used for what might be termed a “general theism”.
“Do you see your theory as a development of Pascal’s wager?”
It could be argued that mine is development of Pascal’s wager. But I don’t think it is. It’s more of a re-iteration of the Jamesian approach to the rationality of theistic belief. Whereas Pascal makes a “bet” that God exists. I argue instead that theism best makes sense of our existential concern for “consistent happiness” while atheism does not. My argument holds where the empirical evidence one way or the other is ultimately determinate.
“Ultimately, why does one assume that rationality requires both consistency and happiness?”
I’m not arguing that rationality requires both consistency and happiness, i’m arguing that we have an existential concern (what might loosely be termed an “intuition”) for consistent happiness. If the empirical evidence is ultimately indeterminate, it doesn’t seem to me that we have a reason to ignore that intuition. However it can, in principle, be overwhelmed by empirical considerations.
“Therefore, is purposeful human action in your opinion then directed not at making the world a better place but to personally knowing God?”
I think that the dichotomy you present is ultimately a false one. Some theology’s (I can think of 2 in particular) actually argue that the pursuit of knowing, enjoying and loving God will entail action which makes the world a better place. If one loves God, then one will try not to do things which displease God. Leaving the world to go to waste and not making the world a better place displease God, hence the person that loves God will, in an ideal situation, try to make the world a better place.
@Clint,
“But in doing so, you must be totally sure that the person in question thinks that their worldview is an essentially unhappy one”
Once again you’re confusing the issue Clint. The atheist can THINK that his worldview is consistent with being happy even though in-fact it isn’t.
” For instance, I don’t believe that the my life has no meaning, just because the universe will eventually end in heat death.”
Once again Clint, you’re putting up strawmen! i never said that because the universe will die in a heat death that therefore there is no meaning to the universe. What I stated is that IF atheism is true, then we will die, and the universe will die regardless of what course of action we take in life. Whether or not the universe dies in a heath death or something else, is purely incidental.
“Contrary to what you said in your last post, an atheistic worldview enables one to apply whatever purpose the person wants to their life, and be consistently fulfilled and made happy by it”
At this stage Clint, this is just a mere assertion. You still have not deigned to engage with the argument that I have offered in the article, but instead offered an unsubstantiated counter assertion. I have argued as follows (and you can find it all in the article above):
1. Happiness in life requires the cognizance of purpose
2. Atheism does not offer purpose
3. Theism does offer purpose
Now, I have argued for these contentions in the article. If you want to negate them, engage with the argument i offer. Else you haven’t done your duty to shift the burden of proof.
” Hence I don’t see there is any way you can prove that non-theists are living inconsistently with their worldview”
That you don’t see it is irrelevant. Recall the three contentions I talked about above. The first one was that happiness requires the cognizance of some purpose. If a worldview does not permit that purpose yet a person who holds to that worldview continues to be happy. Then that person is living his life in a way that is inconsistent with what his worldview permits.
@ Clint,
I’m noticing a sudden shift in your argumentation. Earlier you argued that an atheistic worldview DOES offer some purpose thereby allowing us to have happiness in our lives. But in your most recent comment, you switch and start attacking the idea that we even need a purpose in life to have real happiness.
But in none of your comments to date have you ever engaged with the argumentation that i’v offered in the article above (it sounds like the record is stuck in a rut). What’s more, is that in your latest comment, wholly aside from the lack of engagement with the argument, you instead engage in a fallacious attack. You seem to argue that my argument is invalid by virtue of my theistic up-bringing, thereby engaging in the informal fallacy known as the “genetic fallacy”.
If you want to argue with me about whether or not happiness requires the cognizance of some purpose, then by all means we can. But rather than making un-substantiated counter-assertions, and rather than engaging in fallacious reasoning, why not come to the table with a few insightful criticisms based on what i’v actually said in the article above. Then, and only then, can we really sit down and have a truly enlightening conversation about the issue at hand.
If you can’t do that much, then I’d politely suggest that you go away and do some study on the issue.
Clint,
“Contrary to what you said in your last post, an atheistic worldview enables one to apply whatever purpose the person wants to their life, and be consistently fulfilled and made happy by it”
As I write in my article, this is the same as saying that we’ll invent a purpose even though we know that there isn’t such a purpose. It’s tantamount to saying that we should delude ourselves into believing in a purpose even though there isn’t one. But if the empirical evidence is indeterminate, then we don’t have a reason to engage in such grand self delusion!
This comment really does show that you haven’t read my article.
Andrew
Just because you keep labouring the point, I want to point out that only by my first post had I only skimmed your article. You can stop using this as a defence of your argument.
There are many possible purposes in life; people themselves choose which ones to make priorities for them. This does not mean that these purposes are fabricated, or that the people are deluding themselves. I would agree that atheism itself doesn’t provide a purpose for life, however that doesn’t mean that people can’t find purpose in life. I never attacked the idea that we need purpose to achieve happiness; on the contrary, I agreed that this seems to be the case.
I have not engaged in the genetic fallacy or any such thing. I have been attempting to get to the root of your argument. Correct me if I’m wrong, but (from what you say in your article) you are arguing that because atheism doesn’t inherently provide purpose and meaning (esp spiritually, or after death), atheists cannot truly be happy if they are consistent with this worldview. And you’re saying that theism does, and so theists can be happy with their worldview. My reference to the theistic upbringing is relevant to the argument because theists believe that what happens after they die is primarily important, and that what they do in their lives will have enduring consequences and be more important than just in this life. However, if one is raised to not expect to exist after death, or to believe in immaterial things, one does not feel disappointed when realising that there is no overarching purpose or meaning to existence. Consider being an atheist for a moment – you would not find any inherent meaning in the concept that “there are no gods”. It is simply illogical for you to expect that atheists would find inherent meaning in the lack of something. You move on to find inherent meaning in other things, like making the world a better place, or the people around you.
As I said in my first post, the tendency for humans to always be striving for something, to want to have purpose, can be explained as a result of the hardships of survival in the past – for thousands of years, human life purpose was simply to survive (as it is for all wild animals now), and it would have taken all of people’s purpose and effort to achieve survival – and meaning was probably found through family , as it is for many people today.
“Just because you keep labouring the point, I want to point out that only by my first post had I only skimmed your article. You can stop using this as a defence of your argument”
As a matter of fact, I have never used the fact that you never read my article as a defense. I have laboured this point because your comments repeatedly evince the fact that you haven’t. If you had ACTUALLY read the article, then I doubt that you would have made many of the objections that you have. For instance, at one point you claimed that just because it was “pragmatic” to believe in God didn’t make said belief true. If you had read the article, you would have noticed that I had dealt EXPLICITLY with this complaint in the “objections” section.
“I would agree that atheism itself doesn’t provide a purpose for life, however that doesn’t mean that people can’t find purpose in life”
Again, the point isn’t that atheism doesn’t provide a purpose for life, rather the point is that atheism is incompatible with the reality of purpose in life. In any event, I have already argued that simply “finding” purpose in life when ones worldview doesn’t permit (or is inconsistent with) purpose in life is tantamount to saying “well, well delude ourselves into believing that there is a purpose in life, even though our worldview doesn’t permit it”. Now you’ve asserted that such people aren’t deluding themselves. But what i’m arguing is that atheism is inconsistent with purpose in life (check the article for argument details) so that if an atheist is to believe that there is purpose in his life, then he is believing something that is in tension with his atheism. Ergo for this atheist to believe in a purpose to life (even in spite of his atheism) he has to be either a) ignorant as the logical consequences of atheism or b) deluding himself.
“I have not engaged in the genetic fallacy or any such thing”
Oh no? you tried to invalidate my argument by reference to the fact that I was raised a theist. If that’s not a genetic fallacy, then I really don’t know what is!
“My reference to the theistic upbringing is relevant to the argument because theists believe that what happens after they die is primarily important, and that what they do in their lives will have enduring consequences and be more important than just in this life. However, if one is raised to not expect to exist after death, or to believe in immaterial things, one does not feel disappointed when realising that there is no overarching purpose or meaning to existence”
I’m afraid that this still commits the genetic fallacy. Whether or not a person has been raised to believe that there is purpose is irrelevant to the truth of it. Similarly, whether or not atheists are raised to believe that there is no purpose does nothing to mitigate the falsity of that belief. This still fails to address any of the premises in the argument itself.
” It is simply illogical for you to expect that atheists would find inherent meaning in the lack of something”
Um…I don’t…?
“You move on to find inherent meaning in other things, like making the world a better place, or the people around you.”
That still doesn’t address my argument regarding the inconsistency of atheism with a purpose in life. In short, you STILL have not engaged with any of the premises of the argument in my article.
So far, all you’re saying is that if we’re atheists then we can formulate our own purpose. I don’t doubt that! Of course you can formulate purpose! but that doesn’t address my argument as to the consistency of doing so! my argument regarding the inconsistency of atheism and purpose REMAINS un-addressed.
@ Matt:
“While does a skeptical argument against a pagan deity have to be “skepticism of the atheist”?. Suppose you have a concept of god which is contradictory or contrary to known facts, or which is contrary to facts I accept as true. Why does pointing this out make me an athiest?.”
and what ‘facts’ would they be, Matt ? Let me guess, they would be ‘facts’ about Christianity rather than ‘facts’ about any other faith and the truth of the former proves the falsity of the latter ?
Or do you have ‘facts’ that prove any particular faith is in error ?
Andrew, I have read and re-read your article many times because you claim that you have an argument in there stating why the atheist worldview is incompatible with having purpose in life. The part of your article that gets closest to this, reads:
“In the end, it will make no qualitative difference to the Universe whether we live the lives of a saint or the lives of a Hitler. It seems then that death is at least one of the aspects of an atheistic ontology which would make such a life absurd/devoid of purpose. But if an atheistic ontology can make no sense of purpose, what then of our happiness?”
Could you please explain to me how this excerpt shows that the atheistic worldview is incompatible with having purpose in life?
Btw Andrew, you may like to notice that, just because I said that just to think it was “pragmatic” to believe in God didn’t make the belief true, I didn’t say that it’s not justified. I don’t know why you keep labouring this point.
You keep saying that I haven’t engaged with the main premise of your argument; but your argument doesn’t seem to provide any support for it either. I can’t refute an argument that you’ve failed to make. Atheism just states that you don’t believe in the existence of gods; it makes no statement on purposes or meanings in life. I believe your argument is redundant.
Andrew, I quote you:
‘I’m afraid that this still commits the genetic fallacy. Whether or not a person has been raised to believe that there is purpose is irrelevant to the truth of it. Similarly, whether or not atheists are raised to believe that there is no purpose does nothing to mitigate the falsity of that belief.”
You are confusing the arguments here. I was not commenting on whether an inherent meaning in life (and by extension, life after death / God) exists or not. I stated that if one is not raised to expect it, one is not disappointed when they “come to believe” that there is no inherent meaning in life. This is a fact. Hence, theists will grow up to think that atheists are “missing” something by not having a greater meaning in life; atheists see it as unnecessary. Therefore it’s much more likely that you, apparently as a theist (not something I had assumed until your latest posts) will say that atheism carries no inherent meaning to life. However, how you’ve come to the conclusion that atheism is incompatible with having a purpose in life, I still don’t know, as you haven’t explained it anywhere.
So Andrew, please, just state clearly and concisely, why you think atheism is incompatible with having a purpose in life, because it’s not in your article. And I mean ANY purpose; I’ve already agreed with you that the concept of atheism carries with it no inherent purpose or meaning, how can it? (and we agree on this).
Until you state this, your argument falls over; because as you stated, “But if atheism makes no sense of purpose, then if we are atheists and we live out that worldview to its logical consequent, then quite simply we cannot be happy. This point is fundamental to my over-arching argument.”
Maybe it would be simpler for you, if I explained that due to atheism being a lack of belief in gods, atheism isn’t a worldview. Atheism makes no comment on purpose and meaning in life; it doesn’t restrict or define any aspect of a person except to say that they don’t believe in gods. There is no way in which atheism can actually have a “logical conclusion”; it doesn’t purport to have one – therefore, atheists must derive their meaning and purpose from other aspects of their lives.
@Clint,
“Could you please explain to me how this excerpt shows that the atheistic worldview is incompatible with having purpose in life?”
Fair question! it now seems like we’re getting somewhere. I’m glad that we can finally get past the whole “He said, she said” nonsense.
What I try to argue, is that ultimately life has no purpose on atheism right (though note that this is the conclusion, not a premise).
If atheism is true, then things are simply the product of chance (accident) and law (though I admit I don’t argue that in the article itself). Whether we act one way or whether we act another way, it doesn’t matter. If i live the life of a saint, I die and the universe dies. If I live the life of a dictator, I die and the universe dies. In the end, everything remains indifferent. You might put it like this, “We’re here and then we’re gone, we’re an insignificant blip on the face of existence”.
What, we can then ask, is the point (the purpose) of doing anything? If ultimately i’m fated to die, if ultimately my actions make no impact on my fate, why then should I deign to do anything?
Such a view does not seem compatible with there being a purpose of any meaningful kind. It doesn’t give us a reason to act in a way that might be deemed “moral”.
Contrast that with theism, which offers us the purpose of “knowing, loving and enjoying God forever”. This offers us a reason or purpose to our moral action. If someone loves God, then it seems to follow that this person will do things that please Him. It pleases God for people to treat each other properly, to make the world a better place etc etc.
Now note, i’m not arguing that theists are morally superior individuals to atheists. I’m simply arguing that theism best makes sense of moral action. If theists act immorally, it only shows that they’re not acting in a way consistent with what their worldview permits
@ Clint,
“Atheism just states that you don’t believe in the existence of gods; it makes no statement on purposes or meanings in life. I believe your argument is redundant”
You’re quite right. Atheism, by itself, says nothing about purposes or meanings in life. But that doesn’t ipso facto make my point redundant. My point is that the absence of God implies the absence of any purpose or meaning in life whether or not atheism, by itself, says it or not.
@Clint,
“So Andrew, please, just state clearly and concisely, why you think atheism is incompatible with having a purpose in life, because it’s not in your article.”
Um…yes it is…it’s in the section entitled “why purpose cannot exist on an atheistic ontology”
“Maybe it would be simpler for you, if I explained that due to atheism being a lack of belief in gods, atheism isn’t a worldview”
Um…yes it is! Theism is a worldview which holds that God is the non-material “ground of reality” so to speak. Ergo atheism is the worldview or “point of view from which one views the world” which negates this.
Andrew, I genuinely thank you for taking a more moderate tone in your last comment. I didn’t like where we seemed to be going. 🙂
As much as I would like to debate each point you’ve made in detail, in the interest of time, I’m going to have to ask you to make some assumptions with me.
Please assume that I believe there is a valid evolutionary reason for humans to act morally (which contributes towards each individual’s best interests – my thoughts are derived from Game Theory).
You ask what is the point of doing anything, if we are insignificant blips on the face of existence. You’re right – this in itself doesn’t give us a reason to be moral (I think there are other reasons for that). And you are right, it doesn’t seem to support the idea of there being a purpose of an overarching kind. But it doesn’t imply that there necessarily no purposes at all. There is life on this planet (however it arose), and fellow humans are intelligent and can be connected with. This gives rise to purposes in life, from our perspectives. Yes, these purposes are derived from the humans themselves, but a worldview with a lack of Gods or spirituality doesn’t take away from the meaning we derive from other human beings, or the meaning we derive from helping animals or the planet.
I don’t know how else to show that I don’t think an atheist worldview necessarily denies the meanings and purposes derived from these things; but I know it from personal experience, and I have seen it in others.
“There is no way in which atheism can actually have a “logical conclusion”
Um…you’re begging the question! my claim is that atheism DOES have a logical consequence, i.e. it logically implies the absence of purpose. So for you to merely assert that atheism can’t have a “logical conclusion” is to really just beg the question against my argument.
@Clint,
“And you are right, it doesn’t seem to support the idea of there being a purpose of an overarching kind. But it doesn’t imply that there necessarily no purposes at all.”
But my argument concerns itself only with the over-arching kind of purpose. I gave the instance (in the article) of philosophical hedonism which held that the over-arching purpose in life was to maximise ones pleasurable experiences.
Once again, my view is compatible with people being able to create purpose in life. So you’re right, my argument does not imply that there are necessarily no purposes. I’v simply tried to argue that atheism does not permit the over-arching purpose that I argue is necessary for “consistent happiness”. You seem to agree with this point, but you stress that it doesn’t imply that there are no purposes. But as i’v pointed out, this does not damage my argument.
I don’t see how atheism implies the absence of purpose/meaning; it only implies the absence of purpose/meaning derived from a deity. If (and I repeat, if) there was an overarching meaning derived from something other than a deity, atheism would have nothing to say about that.
From what you’ve been saying, doesn’t it mean that atheism has nothing to say about (for example) your example of the Hedonistic purpose in life?
@Clint,
“I don’t see how atheism implies the absence of purpose/meaning; it only implies the absence of purpose/meaning derived from a deity.”
A few comments ago, I offered an argument for why atheism does not seem to offer any meaningful form of meaning or purpose. At that point, I hadn’t yet entered into a discussion of whether or not that purpose is derived from a deity. Thus, my argument there really applied to the absence of purpose generally on atheism.
Yes, but note the difference between atheism itself not offering purpose (which we both agree with), and atheism implying that (an overarching, non-deity) purpose is not possible at all. I’m claiming the latter isn’t necessarily true. Can you counter this?
It seems like your last post confuses these points; this may have been due to my choice of wording on the section you quoted of mine.
@ Clint,
My claim throughout the entirety of our argument has been that if atheism is true, then there is no over-arching purpose. Where is the confusion in what i’m saying? At points you have even agreed with me on this.
The argument that I offered applies to ALL forms of atheism. If it’s successful, then it means that no form of purpose is possible on atheism.
It still seems like you haven’t understood my previous post. You seem to use the concepts of atheism not providing meaning in life, and atheism not permitting meaning in life, interchangeably. I agree atheism doesn’t provide meaning; but I disagree that atheism denies any meaning derived from anything else.
Good night.
Clint,
Has there been any arguments made which states that living a balanced altruistic life is better and advantageous than being selfish, egotistic?
Having a godless worldview can be problematic, since one can sway from one end to the other with simply no warrants or justifications in which one life stance or choice can condemn, life choices that are morally repugnant, duplicitous (e.g. Camus vs. De Sade)
I don’t deny that people find meaning in being engaged in participating in social justice or the cause of human rights, its something humanists and some christians strongly participate in and more power to them. Its just this feeling of solidarity can be short-charged and fickle. After the dictators have been toppled and freedom established, what then? In the long run, future generations of secularists will be lost to consumerism, egoism and all sorts of distractions that characterized an experience-based society having forgotten past activistic zeal
Its also tragic that the condemnation deserving for people not caring and taking for granted their freedoms to express themselves at work, play and school. (the very freedoms that are being fought and died for in Libya) are simply unjustifiable, given an immanentist world view like yourself, since there is no entity demanding full accountability of such people post-mortem, and no ultimate standard in which all life should be judged.
Alvin,
The main argument for altruism I am aware of, is also based on my theory for where morals come from. In a close-knit human community where individuals and their activities are known to each other, it is in each individual’s best interests to treat everyone else with decency and fairness, for if word goes round that a certain individual hasn’t been, then they will be excluded by everyone else from assistance, trade, public status etc. And if this is a primitive community, then this could make the difference between life and death. It’s still similar to this day – if you are selfish and egotistical, you will lose all your friends. And if you take selfishness to the extreme, where you are breaking laws – raping, stealing, etc – you will soon lose all your rights too.
Based on this logic, it is still clear to non-theists whether or not choices or activities or moral. In fact, it is an old argument that a “moral” choice made under the “guidance” of a deity, really isn’t a moral choice at all. For more information on determining how morality may be defined for non-theists, refer to “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris.
Although the satisfaction from a job well done can be fickle and short-lived, this doesn’t mean that having an atheist worldview necessarily denies you finding purpose in these activities.
I do agree with you though, that this does mean that future generations can get lost in consumerism. Think of any King, Queen or dictator from the past; some still make moral judgements, but almost every one of them surrounds themselves with castles, fancy clothes, servants etc – even the religious ones (and in fact, it can be argued that many religions that carry power and influence have done exactly the same thing).
As I’ve said, I agree that this leaves no “ultimate standard against which life should be judged”. But this doesn’t exclude atheists from finding meaning in non-ultimate things. Although many would argue that love may be the ultimate meaning and purpose to life.
Clint,
I agree with you in keeping people accountable vs visible evil acts with reciprocity, but can you give people reasons to break out of their routinary indifference? or make them care about the marginalized local and abroad? Religions like christianity and islam does have a clear answer that people ought to practice charity not just because of divine fiat, but because of the exemplars of christ, mohammed or whatever.
In atheism, honestly people can still do their 9-5 jobs, pay their taxes. focus their attention to their immediate family and still be fickle in their committment to charitable causes
Alvin,
There is nothing in atheism that gives people cause to care about others for no return, in itself. I agree with you on that.
However the argument that Andrew seems to be making is that having an atheistic worldview prevents you from finding meaning in anything else, i.e. if there was a good reason for genuine altruism (not associated with a deity), atheism would stand in your way of that meaning. But I don’t see how that can be the case, and I haven’t seen an argument for it here. Atheism only comments on people’s attitude to deities, not to the overall meaning in life. I don’t see how Andrew’s comments about “the universe” being overall unaffected by the way we live our lives (except in a physical way), have any impact on the meaning and purpose that people find in their lives. For instance, if you are an excellent teacher, and improve the lives of 100 of your students, you have left meaning in the world, at least for the lengths of the lives of those students – but this won’t alter the eventual physical state of the universe on a large. But I don’t see the relevance.
Sorry, 2nd to last sentence should read “…on a large scale.”
@Clint,
The argument that I have used would mean that any form of atheism is incompatible with there being any over-arching purpose. I have not denied that someone could arbitrarily derive some “purpose” from other things. But as I have already stated, this would be simply inventing a purpose.
“You seem to use the concepts of atheism not providing meaning in life, and atheism not permitting meaning in life”
My argument concerning the meaning of life on atheism did not aim to answer the question of where meaning comes from. It simply stated that on atheism, there can be no ultimate purpose in life.
This doesn’t forbid atheists from arbitrarily deriving meaning from something else. But this is merely “inventing” an over-arching purpose in life, when one doesn’t exist.
I gave the example of philosophical hedonism. It stated that the over-arching purpose in life was to maximize ones pleasurable experiences. If atheism is true, and the atheist holds to philosophical hedonism, then he has simply stipulated it. He has simply stipulated that ones purpose in life is to maximize ones pleasurable experiences.
So that all this atheist has done is “invent” a purpose when no purpose exists!
Andrew I’ve been thinking since I commented last. You commented that I referred to Christianity last time. My apologies but examples from within it should uphold the argument. However what I see is St paul considering a life of purpose that for him would not involve knowing and loving god for eternity. My thinking is that knowing god for eternity is irrelevant to the discussion for the theist. It seems more important in Christian theology but not vital. I would propose that for the theist what is more important is pleasing god. This could give us the same intuitive sense of purpose, cause us to try make the world a better place and, for a loving god, cause us to help our fellow man. Eternity would not be out of the picture either as we would eternally remain in the memory of god for what we did.
Chris,
yes, definitely agree on the descriptive content of atheism having not to believe in deities or the more softer form of agnosis, meaning the unknowability of whether or not cosmic gods exists. But Andrew has a point that having no overrarching monolithic definer means that atheism cannot justifiably provide a prescriptiveness on how one’s actions and reactions should be governed at all times. it has to come from a myriad of sources, state, self, ideology that has variability in either expressing life or suppressing it. One can plot and scheme to avoid accountability by depending on the finitude of people moral principles (e.g. legal loopholes) or mask them in deceptive practices that rely on the ignorance of enforcement agencies and at the end of their life still come out a winner for not having been caught etc.
Christianity I guess provides both the impetus for individuals to enforce earthly laws to punish the evil doers, and whoever escapes judgement in the now, will suffer hell in the afterlife
@Alvin
From what I can tell, morality as defined by the athiest and the laws that they write do come from a variety of sources as you state, ‘… state, self, ideology’. While theism may provide some overarching principles, a theists interpretation of these texts also come from a myriad of sources such as state, self, ideology and result in a maryiad of seemingly contradictory laws.
While theism provides the catchall for those who have slipped through the loopholes, it also suffers criticisim for allowing those who have slipped through the loopholes to gain ‘death bed’ salvation and ‘have their cake and eat it too’. Theists may even claim special privilage to knowingly flout laws and cause suffering in maryterdom due to the promise of a heavenly reward.
As a theist, I’m concerned about the lack of ultimate justice in atheisim. It just doesn’t seem fair and often rewards the most selfish.
But I increasingly think theism has its problems too. I’m not sure which is better to be honest.
Alvin,
Please note my name is “Clint”, not Chris!
I was about to write something similar to what John said. Yes while theism purports to give an overarching purpose to life, the interpretation is almost as variable as the behaviours seen in atheists. So although you’re technically correct, it’s not as overwhelming a difference in reality as “these ppl have overall purpose and live by rules” and “these ppl have no purpose and live by complete chaos”.
Andrew, I still disagree with your argument. You say that on atheism, there can be no ultimate purpose in life. No, it states that there can be no ultimate purpose in life derived FROM A DEITY. Whether or not an atheist finds their own purpose in life (and I see no justification in calling a purpose that someone finds themselves “delusional” even if it is self-determined), or whether they find an ultimate purpose in life from something else, it is irrelevant. It is not the case that everyone has to find the same purpose in life, to make these purposes valid. Atheists only have to genuinely believe that they have a purpose, to have their happiness consistent with their worldview, according to your argument. This is where my “genetic fallacy” argument (as you refer to it) takes effect. Because theists are raised to think that the only purposes worth living for in life must be ones that leave lasting consequences after they die, in another realm, that last forever, and forever affect the universe, they can’t understand being happy with purposes that don’t fit this description. How happy someone is with a particular purpose comes down to expectations of that purpose, and theists and atheists have different expectations.
Besides, I would argue that theists arbitrarily derive meaning in life from beliefs in things that don’t exist, in a similar way to the way that you claim atheists might; don’t forget that being a theist is a choice.
@John,
Again, i think you’re confusing what i’m really saying here. You seem to want to claim that my argument is null because of what Christian theology says. Mine is not an argument for Christianity. If you want to talk about that, then I suggest you talk to a Christian theologian.
What Paul says about purpose is not relevant to what i’m saying here.
Clint,
“No, it states that there can be no ultimate purpose in life derived FROM A DEITY”
The argument that I offered for the lack of purpose on atheism did not address the question of whether or not that purpose was derived from a deity. Whether or not that purpose is derived from a deity or not, was irrelevant to my argument AT THAT POINT. The point is that atheism means that there is no ultimate purpose in life and you have yet to respond to that. The question of where that purpose is derived is at this stage irrelevant.
“(and I see no justification in calling a purpose that someone finds themselves “delusional” even if it is self-determined”
Atheism, as I have argued, does not facilitate a purpose. There is no ultimate purpose on atheism. Hence if an atheist “self determines” a purpose, then he is simply stipulating a purpose. In other words, he is simply inventing a purpose WHEN ONE DOES NOT EXIST.
Thus, in order to believe that there is a purpose, the atheist must either a) be ignorant of the fact that atheism does not facilitate purpose or b) be purposely trying to delude himself into believing that there is a purpose.
“Atheists only have to genuinely believe that they have a purpose, to have their happiness consistent with their worldview, according to your argument.”
No, that’s not what my argument says. If atheists genuinely believe that their life has a purpose then even though they’re happy, their happiness is not consistent with what their worldview facilitates.
Andrew, I’m not trying to claim your argument as null I just would like to discuss purpose as I think it’s a little more complex than you argue.
There are not many pure theists out there so I must draw examples from Christianity, Islam Judaism or otherwise. Maybe one example cannot invalidate your argument but it does raise interesting questions. Besides you use Christian theology as an example to make your point so I’m not sure why you’re rejecting now.
However lets put Christianity aside. Why can’t pleasing god give us ultimate purpose within theism. Why does ultimate purpose need to mean one lives for eternity.
On atheism, if there is no ultimate purpose ie no god, then this does not rule out other less ultimate purposes which can still provide meaning and make life livable consistent and happy without. If an atheists intuition tells him there is no eternal purpose then he is not delusional and may be happy.
The rock pusher is a fantastic lead in to this rather interesting discussion on theism.
Clint,
sorry about the name,
So in terms of existential relevance, meaning, purpose and liveability. Looking at both world views, do you honestly say that its moot one way or the other?
Andrew,
“But this is merely “inventing” an over-arching purpose in life, when one doesn’t exist.”
I think this is at the heart of your confusion. Atheists do NOT invent over-acring purpose in life, they never claim that the purposes they invent are anything but subjective. For example if I invent a purpose for my life such as becomming a doctor, or if we collectively construct a purpose for ourselves such as creating a viable and peecful global society where everyone can pursue his/her own ends (within limits, of course) it makes no sense to say that we are deluding ourselves. We’d only be deluded if we suppose that this purpose is “external” to ourselves, i.e. it comes from an external authority like God. But no atheist claims that! The exact opposite is true, otherwise s/he wouldn’t be a atheist!
So your argument is essentially this: in order for a person to have a happy and meaningful existence, his life must have an external, over-arching purpose, (which according to you is provided by God), but if a person simply constructs a purpose (without claiming it’s over-arching!) his/her life is lacking something important and hense cannot be happy.
Now apply this type of argumentation to God himself. What is the (external) purpose of God’s existence? Does his life has a purpose that is not constructed by Him? No. After all, in this regard, humans, given atheism, and God, are in exactly the same circumsance: both lack an external source of purposes, and both set their goals as they go along. So if human existence is pointless, or absurd (like it’s been often argued) on atheism, and they can’t be happy, the same is true of God! His existence is also pointless, and absurd. And according to your argument, God is also deluding himself when he constructs his purposes for his own existence such as creating a Universe and having a relationship with the intelligent beings that would eventually arise in that Universe. You get the picture? Any argument that you can make along those lines concering human existence given atheism, can be made with respect to God, since, as I said, both lack an external purpose-giver, so their existence is “objectively” meaningless. That’s what your argument essentially boils down to: being in the same circumstance as God really sucks! Not to mention that if, in order for one person’s life to be “objectively” meaningfull by having an external purpose, it takes another person to provide it, this would lead to infinite regress: there would have to exist a God’s God to provide God with one.
And finally, let me summarize what I see is the core of your argument: you’re saying that unless there’s someone else (like God) to construct the purposes and set the goal for MY life, i.e. unless someone else determines what I should live for, my life is meaningless and I can’t be happy! Don’t you see the absurdity in that? In any other context we’d recognise this as slavery and the exact opposite of what’s of absolute necessity for a happy life: the freedom to pursue your own ends (just like God does!). And you (along with Matt here) are trying to convince atheists that unless we’re serves we can’t be happy?? Do you really think you’ll succeede?
When an atheist says his life has meaning and purpose he is at odds with great atheist philosophers such as Heidigger, Neitzsche, Sartre. And he would be right.
All human lives have purpose meaning and destiny. We are impelled by biology emotion and spirituality, even atheists share transcendent moments (that they attribute to things other than spiritual). It is a common experience of humanity.
People need hope to survive and it is not found in atheistic nihilism or existentialism it is ultimately founded in Faith of one kind or another.
Sorry Alvin, Andrew, I have been busy the last few days.
Alvin, no, they are not the same, at least as far as for what the theist and atheist believe reality to be; I agree that having an overreaching meaning to life has potential to give more purpose. I must add that there is a caveat to that, though – it is not the case that there is a god for theists, and no god for atheists, at the same time – there either is one, or there isn’t. So either the theists are at least as delusional as Andrew claims the atheists are being, or, the atheists just aren’t seeing the great meaning to life (i.e. god etc).
Over the last few days I’ve had some time to consolidate my thoughts on this. I very much agree with what AgeofReason has said here. I think the main thing I disagree with Andrew about is whether or not it is consistent to be happy with purposes in life that aren’t overreaching. Like I’ve said, just because atheism doesn’t provide a reason for life in itself, it doesn’t prohibit finding meaning in anything other than deities. Therefore, if suddenly an overreaching meaning for life was found, that had nothing to do with deities, atheism wouldn’t prohibit this (and you still haven’t provided an argument why it would). Hence I think your statement “Atheism does not facilitate a purpose” is faulty. But besides this, I think my main disagreement with you is about whether happiness can be found in purposes that aren’t overreaching. And as I’ve been saying, if someone has been raised to not expect these overreaching purposes, they can (and do, from personal experience) find meanings that facilitate happiness in other things. Even if you persist in labelling these purposes as “delusional”, there is no justification for saying that happiness cannot be found in them – as happiness is subjective.
For instance, your sentence “In other words, he is simply inventing a purpose WHEN ONE DOES NOT EXIST” is not valid. An atheist may IDENTIFY a purpose that is not overreaching, and still find happiness from it. These purposes such as helping others, love, survival, certainly do exist. They are not overreaching, but they certainly are purposes, and they do exist. I see no reason as to why happiness cannot be found in them. Although maybe it is evident that you find no happiness in love, Andrew?
Andrew, your statement “If atheists genuinely believe that their life has a purpose then even though they’re happy, their happiness is not consistent with what their worldview facilitates.” Well, this is only true because you yourself have defined the atheist worldview as such. If an atheist wouldn’t define their worldview as such (and I wouldn’t), then this statement doesn’t apply to them. So yes, I guess in your narrow-minded definition, this is the case. But it’s not the case for the atheists, though.
AgeofReason,
But if God has omni-qualities or a Prime Mover that created everything in the universe. Christian theists claim the former has a relational aspect versus the latter which is distant and unfathomable. Certainly, your analogy fails since you assume God to be contingent like a Finite Godistic view and not the Omni-personal God of the Bible, who is both transcendent and immanent and sees all of time and is omniscient enough to tell people what to do, because he is the standard of perfection vis a vis modified DCT
So God doesn’t need a god to have his life scripted for him, (finite gods yes) because he is necessary being not needing guidance. He embodies all of meaning contra Atheism which has contingent meanings that each finite individual must determine for him/herself surrounded by an abstract and indifferent universe.
Alvin, I feel like I’m picking on you by saying this, but as soon as I read AgeOfReason’s previous post I just freaking KNEW someone was going to wriggle out of his argument by (essentially) saying that God was exempt (for whatever reasons) from his argument.
Mind you, I have to admit I don’t know what you’re talking about in the second half of your first paragraph. Translation please?
So, you’re saying that God doesn’t need external means to finding meaning in his existence, because he is awesome. Okay. But then, what meaning does God find in himself, in his own existence? If he is infinitely powerful, doesn’t AgeOfReason’s point still stand that this must mean that the universe (no matter how wonderful we consider it to be) must be trivial to him, and hence, (relatively) pointless?
@ Clint and Age of Reason
you are both anthropomorphising, ie attributing human characteristics to something that is not human.
There is no basis for assuming God is in any way like humans, that he has the same needs or desires or any of the same limitations.
From a Christian point of view there is reason to believe that some aspects of humans reflect something of the nature and character of God, but this is a one way street. To repeat we may be partly like God but God is not like us.
What comes out in your questions is the presumption that God doesnt really exist except as a creation of man, hence the inability to conceive of God in anything other than human terms.
Jeremy,
I agree with what you’ve said.
Can you provide any evidence (however) that God doesn’t wish that there was more for “him” to live for, though? Just saying – you can’t be sure one way or the other.
Btw I still think this is an aside to the main argument of the article.
@ Clint
!st couple of chapters of Genesis
God says “Let us make man in our own image”
later Genesis records God walking and talking with Adam and Eve.
Now, leaving aside the literalness of this or otherwise, Genesis tells us of a God who is creative and communicative by His very nature.
I dont think we can extrapolate to assume he “needs” or “wishes” as a human might do so. He reveals internal motivations but not subjection to external forces. Actually we would understand there is no such thing as a force external to and hence applying on God
Let’s just say that I think he could work on his communication.
Would it make any difference?
Jesus Christ came and lived among us and performed miracles and preached renconciliation between man and God. He showed the way with a perfect example. In his own time most rejected him and his own people had him crucified. Now with a little historical distance, people claim either that he didnt really exist, or that the testimony we have cany be trusted because they were his friends, or that its all a giant hoax.
How much more clearly could God communicate than limiting himself to human form and joining us in ordinary life.
If He came in power and glory you would be compelled to believe, there would be no choice in the matter. But scriptue is clear God wants you to choose to love Him. Genuine love and friendship cannot be compelled.
Compulsion brings fear and hatred not love.
Clint,
sorry about the acronym, MDCT stands for Modified Divine Command Theory. Its a response vs. the Euthypro Dilemna, i’m assuming you know what the dilemna is. Wherein goodness is an inherent attribute of God the same way wetness is inherent in water.
Jeremy, if god came in power and glory, I would not be “compelled” to “believe”. Unless that is what you’re saying your god would do. I may or may not believe, of my own free will. Believing something to be true because of evidence is not the same as being “compelled” (against one’s will); it is compulsion via one’s own will. This sort of compulsion does not bring fear and hatred. Besides, your argument is illogical – how come it is okay for a god to take human form 2000 years ago, but not now? Besides, given the distribution of people on the planet back then, and the state of communications at the time, a relatively tiny proportion of the planet would have learned of him. I wouldn’t call this a great attempt by a god to communicate, even when he deemed a physical presence appropriate.
The basis of my disbelief in Christianity stems from the tales from the Bible that I was told as a child. Even then, the stories were so fantastical that I could see no basis in reality for them (yes, this is the argument from incredulity, in reverse).
I see no current proof that any form of supernatural being exists. Regardless of the historical evidence for Jesus (or otherwise), there is no reason for me to believe that Jesus or the Christian God (or any other god) presently exists, or at least, has any interaction with our world or its people.
Or only basis for belief about anything in the world is evidence, and I see no reason that a god or gods should be exempt from this.
Or only basis for belief about anything in the world is evidence, and I see no reason that a god or gods should be exempt from this.
Can you spell out what you mean by evidence.
Directly observable phenomena.
Theories that correctly make predictions also seem to be able to be relied upon. (At least, we do rely on them).
I don’t see the Bible complying to either of those conditions.
@ Clint
“Jeremy, if god came in power and glory, I would not be “compelled” to “believe”. Unless that is what you’re saying your god would do. I may or may not believe, of my own free will”
Here again you are missing the point because of your own limited conception of what a God maybe.
Just theoretically, try and imagine a being of such immense power that He could call the universe into being by the force of his will and you were in his presence and he turned to look directly at you and you were fully aware of it. Do you think for a moment your free will, intellectual assent, or any intent on your part would play any part in the realisation of your status compared to such an overwhelmingly powerful being?
An analogy is really hard to come up with, perhaps you find yourself lost in the middle of the Pacific ocean or within the gravitational pull of a black hole. Neither of these mean or intend you any harm but as a human you have no power no choice no determination at all in what happens next, you die and thats all there is to the story. Your free will and choice are completely irrelevant.
What i’m trying to get to is that God wants your voluntary assent to a relationship with Him, not to compel you by the mere fact of His presence, not to run roughshod over your intellect, mind and choice by His power.
Unfortunately once your are forced to believe without free choice its too late. God will respect your free choice and separate you from His presence forever.
Jeremy:
And…. ?
What you’ve said is all based on assuming that a god exists. Why assume that first?
If God presented himself to us directly, how is this any different from how people claim to have personal experience of God? Do they have any choice in the matter? Is their experience “compelling”, resulting only in “fear and hatred”?
As for believing in God voluntarily, well that’s great. But I can’t voluntarily believe in something that I can’t logically rationalise the existence of. I actually can’t, no matter how much I might want to. Like I said, if only God worked on his communication…