BookTalk.org

It seems the possibilities regarding human existence and the universe are as follows:

(1) There is no creator, deity or higher power, and humans are just "DNA machines."

(2) There is a creator, deity or higher power, and humans were created, presumably with some kind of soul and afterlife.(otherwise we have a creator who made mere "DNA machines" which of course is logically possible but I don't think anyone wants to defend that possibility)

(2a) A subset (2), but involving specific claims (i.e. a religious tradition) about the nature of this deity and its relationship to humans. Obviously there are many variations of this, most of which are contradictory if taken literally at all. Most believers are not simply deists who believe in (2), and fall into this category.

Claim (3): Since atheists do not believe in (2), they cannot live meaningful lives.

But since believers believe in (2), if they are correct, humans are not just "DNA machines." They are something more.

So is it the false belief in (1) that prevents living a meaningful life, even if (2) is true?

If that is the case, then what about the false beliefs in (2a)? They are also misinformed about the nature of reality and the true deity if (2) is true. Is the mere belief in any non-existent deity enough to give their lives meaning? That would be a strange way of justifying meaning. Are atheists then not capable of "tricking" themselves into a meaningful life? It could also be based on a false belief if (2a) is enough. It would be incumbent on believers to explain this distinction.

So if believers believe (2), they cannot make the claim (3). Unless they want to make the claim for nearly all believers as well.

Of course, this does not address the justification of meaning in life if (1) is true, that is a separate argument.

Very interesting indeed!

I think what is being said is: "Should you be right, you are taking away the meaning of my life."
The existence of god is the central underpinning that validates everything else a christian values. Morality is directly derived from the law of god. What makes things good or bad without that? Through the christian mythos we become an important part of the cosmos. Take away god and we are no longer the favored sons of an all powerful loving father.
I think we can all understand how this can make one feel threatened. It is very hard, and I think it only gets harder as time goes by, to accept that everything you believe in is false. Especially if there's nothing to fall back on.
I mean, it's probably a lot easier to go from christianity to buddhism than it is from christianity to atheism, since in the second case you are forced to question your own values extensively and either justify them without god or discard them, whereas in the first case you can compare your own set of values to the set of values offered by buddhism and see how they fit together. A change of religion will probably still cause a lot of existential distress, but going from christianity to atheism must feel like an existential free fall...

For us the assertion "there is no god" is a simple statement of truth. For them it's an attack on their values and beliefs. This is important to understand I think.... I'm not saying we need to tip - toe around the issue, but if we talk about this with someone, I think the right way to do it is to show them that there can be meaning to life without god, that morality persists in the absence of objective goodness, not through discussion but through living example.

So what does "meaningful life" mean exactly?

What it means to me is "a satisfying life, a life that makes a difference in some sense that matters to me."

I might derive satisfaction from volunteering in a food bank, running a marathon, raising money for a charity, earning a million dollars, climbing Mt. Everest, riding a bicycle around the world, or meditating in a cave for 30 years. Whatever I decide is worthwhile and devote myself to can be satisfying and therefore meaningful in the sense I'm talking about.

Often what seems to happen is that someone will decide that, say, running a marathon is worthwhile. They train and work and eventually complete the goal and finish the marathon. And they feel wonderful! It's great... for a few days. And then ordinary life creeps back in and it's time to find a new worthwhile goal and start working on it, to get the next fix of meaning/satisfaction.

I was intrigued by VMLM's suggestion that converting from christianity to buddhism might be easier than converting from christianity to atheism. My understanding of buddhism is that it teaches that everything is empty, the same as atheism. There are folk traditions within buddhism that talk about deities and spirit and so forth, but I believe that the Buddha himself always taught that everything is empty (devoid of intention or intrinsic meaning), which is essentially what materialism (a superset of atheism) says as well.

I agree that the christian can compare their current values with those of the buddhists to see how they match up. Why can't they do the same thing with atheists? Enough atheists have written about the idea of being good without god that there's material for carrying out that process. My experience of the process of deconverting from christianity was that it involved a lot of questioning of values and "existential free-fall", whether I was aiming for taoism, buddhism, atheism, or not aiming at all.

Of course, this does not address the justification of meaning in life if (1) is true, that is a separate argument.

Why would that be a separate argument, why is the corollary never stated "If (1) is true, Theists cannot live a meaningful life"? Because atheists would never make such a ridiculous claim; meaning is found in this life.

LanDroid wrote:

Of course, this does not address the justification of meaning in life if (1) is true, that is a separate argument.

Why would that be a separate argument, why is the corollary never stated "If (1) is true, Theists cannot live a meaningful life"? Because atheists would never make such a ridiculous claim; meaning is found in this life.

Agreed. The notions that an atheist cannot live a meaningful life or cannot suffer an existential crisis, cannot enjoy Christmas etc. come from a position of insecurity and deliberate obtuseness. It says a lot about the person making such claims.

The claim that atheists cannot live a meaningful life does seem to me (and others i'm sure) patently absurd.

Carl Sagan's and James Randi's lives for example seem to me to be immensely meaningful, and i'm confident they seemed and seem so to them.

they would relate to their lives far more intimately than i would of course but even from this great distance the wonderful teaching, informing and educating they did and do and the marvellous example they gave and give are simply indispensable to me and we'd be much the poorer without them.

Dawkins and Hitch, more great contributions. The list goes on and on...

so straight away with no effort i can think of 4 "atheists" whose lives are very meaningful to me personally, and i know hardly anything about them, so i can only conclude that their lives were even more meaningful to they themselves

i think this idea "The claim that atheists cannot live a meaningful life" is more levelled at some sort of "atheist archetype", or "atheist stereotype" that doesn't properly exist.

a bizarre characature of a "material reductionist with no poetic soul" the type who would say "my love for you darling is just a chemical reaction" or "you and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel" (not that i've got anything against the babies in that bathwater)

i think the claim itself though reveals a fear in the person making it. ie. they themselves cannot find meaning within themselves in the context of their experience of this world and the way they relate to it.

"the bad people are going to hell because they sin" becomes "the atheists are unable to live a meaningful life because they dont see it like i see it"

a patently absurd proposition.

ahhhh i see that i am simply retyping what nearly everyone has been saying in each successive post....

we are practically of one mind on the subject... how interesting and meaningful.

so "atheists" dont own everything that falls under their banner and "believers" dont own everything that falls under their banner and i am free to take anything from either camp i like because in the realm of ideas and understanding it is all mine, if i can see it, i can take it, and in my own head be it, and buyer beware.

mathematics doesn't belong to "atheists" any more than morality belongs to "believers"

"meaningful lives" are to be had by anyone who cares to live one, a human no matter whether believer or atheist.

these terms let us down and sell us short. in various minds "atheist" means various things ranging from amazingly life affirming to killjoy and conversely "believer" ranges from amazingly life affirming to whacko nutjob.

so with atheist it's pretty neutral in the sense that there is nothing to defend except the right to not believe what someone else believes whereas with believer there is first of all "what do you believe" and "is that belief defensible"

in the case of fundamentalist literalism (lets all do sharia, or god hates fags) the answer seems to be NO!

and to think that the whole time we spend figuring it out the bankers are skulking off as usual with pots of our money.

can bankers live a meaningful life, with those bonuses, you betcha, depending on how you define meaningful.

lordy mc'lordy is that a star in the east i see

Leading medical journals have conducted research related to the effects of spiritual and secular worldviews

Those with spiritual worldviews vs secular responded more quickly to treatment from depression.
The stronger their commitment, the more rapid their response to treatment.

In research related to Harvard students who experienced "conversions" to a spiritual world view reported experiencing greater joy, satisfaction, and meaning than they had prior to conversion.

Could this be simply a matter of suffering from a "meaningful" psychosis - the psychosis of "delusion"?

Were these Harvard students simply "hardwired" for delusion, or fell victim to delusion because they lacked critical thinking skills?

Secularists in my opinion are much more focused on giving their lives meaning by focusing inward. They are for the most part self obsessed individuals absorbed in careerism.
The delusion of religion allows one to live a more outward life.
I believe there are statistical indicators that show people of religion donate more time and money to charity than people of no religion.

I think most of us could find more meaning by experiencing a good psychotic, delusional conversion

ant wrote:I think most of us could find more meaning by experiencing a good psychotic, delusional conversion

really?!?!

yeah, but when you fall from the top of a mast on a tall ship it's better if the rope you grab on the way down is actually tied to something, else you'll just end up in a big broken splootch when you hit the deck.