If God doesn't exist, does anything have meaning or value?

[InJesusItrust]

Shalom snarflemike;

Short answer to your question; no.

Once a skeptic myself, this was actually the one thing which drove me to find G-d, in a powerful way.

I had been living with no real compass, no hope of life after the grave, and no real basis for morality; and one day it just hit me like a ton of bricks, how ridiculous life really is, without G-d there to provide meaning.

I’ve heard countless atheists and non believers state that they find meaning in life in their relationships, or their family, or their job, or their hobbies. This is all fine and well, but in the end, we all perish.

And though we tried to build up our life as some sort of meaningful endeavor, without G-d, and without a promise of life after this one, it really is completely meaning-less.

Those were dark days; some of the worst, emptiest, loneliest, hopeless days of my life.

And though during my dark night of the soul, my spirit cried out in utter agony and despair, I thank G-d for it. Through such a terrifying encounter I was driven to find G-d.

Or was it G-d, finding me?

Shalom Aleichem

I realized this too as an atheist. People like to pretend there is a meaning to life, but without eternity life has no objective meaning. Incidentally these are the same people who insist on not accepting subjective truth; yet they are willing to subjectivize truth about purpose so they have a reason to live.

I was stuck in despair when I realized this. Doesn’t matter how happy you are today, for tomorrow your memory will disappear. You legacy matters neither because time erases all things.

 

[Sair]

I realized this too as an atheist. People like to pretend there is a meaning to life, but without eternity life has no objective meaning. Incidentally these are the same people who insist on not accepting subjective truth; yet they are willing to subjectivize truth about purpose so they have a reason to live.

I was stuck in despair when I realized this. Doesn’t matter how happy you are today, for tomorrow your memory will disappear. You legacy matters neither because time erases all things.

Realising that life has no objective, eternal, universal significance or purpose is really no reason for despair. If anything, the ability to formulate subjective purpose - to seek enjoyment, recognition, satisfaction, goals that seem important to us, is one of the things that sets higher animals apart from those that simply pursue the necessities of living at an instinctual level.

If you can move beyond thinking that things only matter if they have eternal significance, then you will start to appreciate the sublime irony - that it doesn’t matter, from our perspective as subjective beings, that our lives don’t matter beyond our own experiences.

And, really, if you think about it, it won’t do to suppose that our purpose is somehow to attain heaven and/or achieve closeness to God - once we’ve attained that purpose, assuming we do, then our continued existence would be pointless anyway…

 

[InJesusItrust]

I think that it is intellectually dishonest to insist on objective evidence for everything else then to accept subjective reasons for why you should live. If life has no objective meaning then you just have to accept that it is worthless rather than play mind games pretend it has meaning.

Pleasure is only valuable as long as memory of it exists. If you die and memory disappears, you may have sought pleasure you whole life but it came to naught. If there is eternal life, the memory lingers.

 

[Sair]

I think that it is intellectually dishonest to insist on objective evidence for everything else then to accept subjective reasons for why you should live. If life has no objective meaning then you just have to accept that it is worthless rather than play mind games pretend it has meaning.

For many unbelievers, even for ambivalent or nominal believers - at least, in my experience - there is really no subjective evidence for God either. What many people value about religion - and what is offered in support by those who argue that religion is a necessary part of human social life, whether its manifold and varied claims are true or not - is the sense of community, identity and purpose it can provide. These can be obtained in other ways, ways that don’t involve investing belief and commitment in entities for which there is no evidence - be it subjective or objective - that is unequivocal. And if your investment in religion is subjectively grounded - and again, there is irony at work here - then you also have no grounds for criticising those who base their values and purposes upon alternative subjective criteria.

Pleasure is only valuable as long as memory of it exists. If you die and memory disappears, you may have sought pleasure you whole life but it came to naught. If there is eternal life, the memory lingers.

Au contraire - pleasure is valuable for itself alone, in the moment it is experienced. Were it not so, we would never seek it out, nor would we cherish our memories of it. We don’t, generally speaking, seek out subjectively bad experiences, no matter how vivid and long-lasting our memories of them. We might look back and say that a particular unpleasant experience was valuable, but only if we perceive that it was productive of outcomes that we then subjectively consider to be good.

When it comes to the concept of eternal life, I have seen some argue that it is a state in which one’s earthly life ceases to matter anyway, since the difference is supposed to be so profound. Be that as it may, attaining eternal life, if that is the goal, still renders said eternal life purposeless, since there is nothing left to want or to achieve.

 

[Bradski]

I think that it is intellectually dishonest to insist on objective evidence for everything else then to accept subjective reasons for why you should live. If life has no objective meaning then you just have to accept that it is worthless rather than play mind games pretend it has meaning.

Life in the grand scheme of things has no purpose. But life on a personal level does. At least until one shuffles off this mortal coil and then it becomes aught for naught.

Unless you have passed on your genes…

 

[InJesusItrust]

For many unbelievers, even for ambivalent or nominal believers - at least, in my experience - there is really no subjective evidence for God either. What many people value about religion - and what is offered in support by those who argue that religion is a necessary part of human social life, whether its manifold and varied claims are true or not - is the sense of community, identity and purpose it can provide. These can be obtained in other ways, ways that don’t involve investing belief and commitment in entities for which there is no evidence - be it subjective or objective - that is unequivocal. And if your investment in religion is subjectively grounded - and again, there is irony at work here - then you also have no grounds for criticising those who base their values and purposes upon alternative subjective criteria.

Au contraire - pleasure is valuable for itself alone, in the moment it is experienced. Were it not so, we would never seek it out, nor would we cherish our memories of it. We don’t, generally speaking, seek out subjectively bad experiences, no matter how vivid and long-lasting our memories of them. We might look back and say that a particular unpleasant experience was valuable, but only if we perceive that it was productive of outcomes that we then subjectively consider to be good.

When it comes to the concept of eternal life, I have seen some argue that it is a state in which one’s earthly life ceases to matter anyway, since the difference is supposed to be so profound. Be that as it may, attaining eternal life, if that is the goal, still renders said eternal life purposeless, since there is nothing left to want or to achieve.

There is subjective evidence of God, but you are being willingly blind to it. Since I could not find an objective reason to live, I tried seeking the subjective evidence for God and found it. The meaninglessness of life without eternity should lead those with faulty epistemology to the truth. Eternity with God is not finite, like on earth, but infinite, so your understanding is faulty. We will never feel unsatisfied or without purpose in heaven.

If you claim that one shouldn’t believe things with no objective evidence, and that is why you won’t believe in God, killing yourself is intellectually honest, because there is no objective truth regarding why one should live.

 

[Bradski]

Since I could not find an objective reason to live…

You don’t have family, friends, a love of art? Aren’t there a million and one reasons to enjoy life and make it better for those around us?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hmmmm…I can’t help but notice that both within this thread specifically and within this forum in general there seem to be quite a number of assertions about how a human “should” act or “would” act that seem to be completely divorced from information that has been gathered through sociology, psychology, and the other areas of behavioural studies. Some of the assertions I’ve seen don’t seem to based on actual information beyond one’s pondering, but are asserted as fact.

Consider this, if you (and I am not addressing any specific person here) have a hypothesis about how a person should/would act given a set of conditions and background but you find in general that people don’t act that way then either (1) the hypothesis is wrong (2a) the hypothesis has narrow applicability and is being applied to widely (2b) there are additional unidentified conditions that would indicate whether or not the hypothesis is applicable.

One area that I seem perpetually repeated here is that humans are purely rational beings. A cursory study of human behaviour says otherwise. Humans have rational capability but elements of the irrational (using definition: consistent with or based on reason) are inexorably entangled in many of our motivations. An excellent studio on this can be found in the book “Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain” (António Damásio). I’ve also noted a certain tendency to reify here also.

I don’t really expect any of this to change. But I’ve decided to give into the compulsion to express it.

 

[empther]

Hmmmm…I can’t help but notice that both within this thread specifically and within this forum in general there seem to be quite a number of assertions about how a human “should” act or “would” act that seem to be completely divorced from information that has been gathered through sociology, psychology, and the other areas of behavioural studies. Some of the assertions I’ve seen don’t seem to based on actual information beyond one’s pondering, but are asserted as fact.
etc etc etc etc blah blah blah :hey_bud::hey_bud::hey_bud:

Let’s go down the list, item by item…

First,
should or shouldn’t a 55 year old man recruit children under age twelve to engage in sex and videotape it to share with his friends?
How do you vote: should or shouldn’t ?

Next,
should or shouldn’t a man rob a bank at gunpoint?
How do you vote: should or shouldn’t ?

Next,
should or shouldn’t a thirty year old man rape his neighbot’s 16 year old daughter?
How do you vote: should or shouldn’t ?

Next…

etc
etc
etc
etc

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Realising that life has no objective, eternal, universal significance or purpose is really no reason for despair.

Well technically if there isn’t objective purpose you couldn’t go into despaire since there would be no reason to go into dispare because there would be no purpose for despaire to exist; therefore it wouldn’t exist.

If anything, the ability to formulate subjective purpose - to seek enjoyment, recognition, satisfaction, goals that seem important to us, is one of the things that sets higher animals apart from those that simply pursue the necessities of living at an instinctual level.

Well first off the ability to formulate subjective purpose does not mean you have the RIGHT! I have the ability to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater but I do not have the right to do so.

Secondly animals neither understand their purpose nor create their own purpose for existing. Animals like everything else (but humans), simply exist without questioning the reason for their existance. Animals live out their purpose without understanding it, while humans on the other hand have the ability (because of our intellect) to understand our purpose and thus live it out; this is what we are obligated to do. Like everything else that exists we are not the source of our own purpose because we are not the source of our own existance. Therefore to hold the belief that your intellect is the source of your purpose is a direct contradition of the simple fact that you didnt make youself.
.
Plus saying we exist simply to create our own subjective purpose is basically saying our objective purpose is to create for ourselves a subjective purpose because we believe no objective purpose exists for our existance. Now I don’t know about anyone else but this sounds like a contradition.

If you can move beyond thinking that things only matter if they have eternal significance, then you will start to appreciate the sublime irony - that it doesn’t matter, from our perspective as subjective beings, that our lives don’t matter beyond our own experiences.

How can I appreciate anything if there is no reason to apprecaite because their is no purpose for appreciation?

And, really, if you think about it, it won’t do to suppose that our purpose is somehow to attain heaven and/or achieve closeness to God - once we’ve attained that purpose, assuming we do, then our continued existence would be pointless anyway…

Wait how is our continued existance pointless if we are living out our purpose by being united to the Source of all objective purpose; God?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Hmmmm…I can’t help but notice that both within this thread specifically and within this forum in general there seem to be quite a number of assertions about how a human “should” act or “would” act that seem to be completely divorced from information that has been gathered through sociology, psychology, and the other areas of behavioural studies. Some of the assertions I’ve seen don’t seem to based on actual information beyond one’s pondering, but are asserted as fact.

Consider this, if you (and I am not addressing any specific person here) have a hypothesis about how a person should/would act given a set of conditions and background but you find in general that people don’t act that way then either (1) the hypothesis is wrong (2a) the hypothesis has narrow applicability and is being applied to widely (2b) there are additional unidentified conditions that would indicate whether or not the hypothesis is applicable.

One area that I seem perpetually repeated here is that humans are purely rational beings. A cursory study of human behaviour says otherwise. Humans have rational capability but elements of the irrational (using definition: consistent with or based on reason) are inexorably entangled in many of our motivations. An excellent studio on this can be found in the book “Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain” (António Damásio). I’ve also noted a certain tendency to reify here also.

I don’t really expect any of this to change. But I’ve decided to give into the compulsion to express it.

Humans are such rational beings that we tend to rationalize our irrational behavior.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Humans are such rational beings that we tend to rationalize our irrational behavior.

I think the applicable definition for rationalize is this one:

“To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one’s behavior)”

From answers.com/topic/rationalize

 

[Crescentinus]

I don’t think so. If there is no First Cause, then everything that exists occurred as a result of random chance, therefore has no ultimate meaning or purpose. C.S.Lewis says that nothing can rise above its cause, so therefore if there is no intelligence behind our creation, our own intelligence is not valid.

^This.

 

[empther]

ThinkingSapien wrote:

think the applicable definition for rationalize is this one:

“To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one’s behavior)”

From answers.com/topic/rationalize

All right. Let’s take a look at ThinkingSapien’s link
answers.com/topic/rationalize

v., -ized, -iz·ing, -iz·es.

v.tr.

• To make rational.
• To interpret from a rational standpoint.
• To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one’s behavior): “Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments” (Janice Castro).
• Mathematics. To remove radicals, such as from a denominator, without changing the value of (an expression) or roots of (an equation).
• Chiefly British. To bring modern, efficient methods to (an industry, for example).

v.intr.

• To think in a rational or rationalistic way.
• To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one’s behavior.

Oh!

So besides the negative definition ThinkingSapien gave us,
there’s the positive definition: to think in a rational way. That is, correctly.

I suspected as much.

 

[Sair]

Hmmmm…I can’t help but notice that both within this thread specifically and within this forum in general there seem to be quite a number of assertions about how a human “should” act or “would” act that seem to be completely divorced from information that has been gathered through sociology, psychology, and the other areas of behavioural studies. Some of the assertions I’ve seen don’t seem to based on actual information beyond one’s pondering, but are asserted as fact.

Consider this, if you (and I am not addressing any specific person here) have a hypothesis about how a person should/would act given a set of conditions and background but you find in general that people don’t act that way then either (1) the hypothesis is wrong (2a) the hypothesis has narrow applicability and is being applied to widely (2b) there are additional unidentified conditions that would indicate whether or not the hypothesis is applicable.

One area that I seem perpetually repeated here is that humans are purely rational beings. A cursory study of human behaviour says otherwise. Humans have rational capability but elements of the irrational (using definition: consistent with or based on reason) are inexorably entangled in many of our motivations. An excellent studio on this can be found in the book “Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain” (António Damásio). I’ve also noted a certain tendency to reify here also.

I don’t really expect any of this to change. But I’ve decided to give into the compulsion to express it.

Thank you, ThinkingSapien, for voicing in such a mellow and considered manner some ideas I have had for quite some time.

 

[Sair]

Well technically if there isn’t objective purpose you couldn’t go into despaire since there would be no reason to go into dispare because there would be no purpose for despaire to exist; therefore it wouldn’t exist.

On the one hand, I agree - there is no objective reason for anyone to despair simply from coming to terms with the very likely possibility that this life is all we get.

On the other hand, as regards despair needing a reason in order to obtain, that is evidently false - there are many people who, tragically, experience suicidal despair even though their lives, from any outsider’s perspective, appear to be perfectly satisfactory by any objective measure.

Well first off the ability to formulate subjective purpose does not mean you have the RIGHT! I have the ability to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater but I do not have the right to do so.

You’re quite correct that having the ability to behave in a certain way does not automatically confer a right to do so. But in the absence of objective purpose - and whatever else is claimed, it is quite clear there is no objective evidence for any assertion that humans have an objective purpose beyond the necessary biological tasks of liviing and reproducing - what is one to do but formulate personally, subjectively satisfying goals towards which one might work?

Secondly animals neither understand their purpose nor create their own purpose for existing.

I think you are rather too quick to generalise about nonhuman animals (for whatever else we might be, we are animals). Have you never witnessed a dog playing frisbee with its human for the sheer joy of being able to run and chase something, even if that something is a plastic disc that confers no nutritional benefit? Dolphins have also been observed to investigate and play with objects in their environment, out of mere curiosity and then pleasure. It is clear from behavioural studies that humans are not the only animals who engage in activities purely for enjoyment.

Like everything else that exists we are not the source of our own purpose because we are not the source of our own existance. Therefore to hold the belief that your intellect is the source of your purpose is a direct contradition of the simple fact that you didnt make youself.

The intellect alone cannot be the source of purpose - there has to be interaction with the environment in which said intellect exists.

How do you know that every extant thing is not the source of its own purpose? What need of a purpose for existing when a thing exists anyway?

Plus saying we exist simply to create our own subjective purpose is basically saying our objective purpose is to create for ourselves a subjective purpose because we believe no objective purpose exists for our existance.

I’ve never claimed that we exist for a purpose - objective or otherwise. We just exist. Purpose is something we create for ourselves.

How can I appreciate anything if there is no reason to apprecaite because their is no purpose for appreciation?

Do you have a rational, objective reason for enjoying the taste of chocolate (if you do, that is)?

Wait how is our continued existance pointless if we are living out our purpose by being united to the Source of all objective purpose; God?

What does ‘living out’ unity with God entail? Especially since it would seem we have to be dead in order to attain said union. If the ultimate purpose of humans actually is to achieve spiritual union with or closeness to God, what is the point of any earthly existence? God created angels, supposedly - why bother to create physical beings? And why don’t those who believe that their ultimate purpose cannot be achieved in this life actually hasten to bring about their own deaths? After all, if nothing in this life matters as much as what is supposed to happen in the afterlife, why not hurry on the moment of transition? Believers apparently wonder why unbelievers do not simply commit suicide, since you claim we have no purpose for living; frankly, I would think the motivation for suicide is much higher for those who believe fulfilment can only come after bodily death…

 

[ReapReason]

Yet human beings in general behave as if life truly has meaning and moral value. So it evidently does matter that our lives have true value and meaning. Only somebody who has lost their humanity wouldn’t see a problem with the absence of these things. I think such a person is deluded, as happy as that delusion may be, or worst, dishonest. At least a Christian admits their desire for these things and pursues accordingly. Why would anybody be happy with the idea that it is not truly wrong to rape somebody? The only person that is happy is the rapist.

The main problem is not so much that atheists invent meaning and value in the absence these things, but rather the problem is when an atheist tries to argue that such is a reasonable substitute to objective meaning and value. This is what i find to be ridiculous. This to me is not so much facing reality as it is more a matter of ignoring the existentialist consequences of their belief; not taking the fact of our existence seriously (pushing it to the back of ones mind as one would say) and anesthetizing ones self with the pursuit of some form of pleasure.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yet human beings in general behave as if life truly has meaning and moral value.

I am not sure what you mean by “truly” here, but many human and non-human animals(metazoans) alike find value in a lot of things. Some of these seem to be biological, such as having some value in pleasure and value in experiencing pain which seems to be common in . Some are unique to individuals, like many intrinsic sources of motivation (note: I am speaking of intrinsic motivation in the context of psychology and behaviour).

So it evidently does matter that our lives have true value and meaning.

That’s the second use of the word “true.” The prefixing of the word “value” with the word “true” here is a little confusing to me. Is it possible or an animal to take enjoyment in untrue value and untrue meaning in something? If not, then what do you mean by it here?

The main problem is not so much that atheists invent meaning and value in the absence these things

Meaning and value are both relational concepts to a mind capable of constructing such concepts. In a question somewhat related to but not quite the same as what I asked back at post #48, could you define meaning and value as you are using them here? I get the feeling you may be using the words in a manner that is different than how I usually see them used.

but rather the problem is when an atheist tries to argue that such is a reasonable substitute to objective meaning and value.

This is something else that I’ve never seen well defined. Thus far the most fitting definition of “objective meaning” or “objective value” that seems to best fit how I’ve seen it used in this forum is that it is the “subjective value of a specific mind” or the “subjective meaning from a specific mind.” And with this being a Catholic forum it is usually, but not always, Yahweh who the specific entity being implicitly referenced. Is this consistent with your usage?

 

[circumferential]

Humans seem to have one faculty no other animal does. It is the reason we are capable of having this discussion. It is so very pervasive in us and motivating our actions to an enormous degree, yet sociologists give it relatively little attention. This faculty gives a toddler the ‘sense’ to dance whenever it hears music. It not only makes us sense harmony, it makes us join in. It moves us to buy one car over another. We spend most we decorate and perfume ourselves more because of it than our sexuality. It is the root cause of our understanding of justice, even though specific understanding is molded by experience. It is the strongest ‘instinct’ we possess; we tend to have suicidal thoughts and often kill ourselves because of its non fulfillment. This faculty allows us to enjoy existence to an unlimited degree. It can also lead to deep despairing depression. It has nothing to do with our ordinary understanding of reason.

The reader may think that I am writing about our ability to appreciate beauty. I am, but not the kind that is skin deep. Perhaps we should cal it ‘harmophil’.

I cannot see how the search for meaning will never be understood scientifically or philosophically. It is not like a street sign type of meaning or finding out why an object falls. It is a search for and a sense of ‘rightness’ but not in a scientific or mathematical way. This meaning we seek is one which comes more from our artistic sense. The meaning we seek -and we all seek it- is a mystical knowledge. Yet it is a knowledge which is given by our doing, our living in a particular way. It is like knowledge of God as St. John says ‘anyone who loves knows God’.

Perhaps it is like a dance with God where He leads and we follow. When we misstep we know that something is wrong. Sometimes when we are in so close a harmony we hardly feel God’s presence. We think we are dancing alone. I suppose we can stop dancing altogether. Perhaps that is when we become deaf to the music.

 

[empther]

The confused ramblings of ThinkingSapien and ReapReason show what happens when God is left out of the equation. Nothing means anything.

To have “meaning” means that what is said or done leads to known results. Confused ramblings only lead to more confused ramblings, chaos and nothing.