Clinging to the Crutch of Make-believe Meaning

As a quick primer, please read this comment. In it, Andy Bird suggests that — given a Darwinian origin of man — we “don’t have to accept [meaninglessness] as conscious beings.”

Wait, what?

On the one hand, Mr. Bird wants to teach that the existence of man is owed to evolutionary processes.
On the other hand, Mr. Bird does not want to accept the nihilism which is inherent in Darwinian theory and says that we do not have to accept it, that we are free to invent meaning and to cling to it.

Or, to look at it another way:

On the one hand, Mr. Bird embraces science.
On the other hand, Mr. Bird embraces irrationalism.

If everything is meaningless and all existence is owed to a singularity which somehow one day just happened to explode into several gajillion tons of matter and untold amounts of energy … if all of existence comes down to that, the only value anything can have is that which must be given to it by, well, us.

But we would be meaningless as well; can a meaningless entity ascribe meaning to something else? To itself?

Any meaning clung to by those who believe in a wholly natural Darwinian origin of man is vanity. Indeed, they are deceiving themselves if they think that anything — themselves, their friends, their children, family, and so on — has meaning. And I thought the religious were supposed to be the crazies.

Wonderfully, I know that there is meaning. I know that I, as a human, have untold value and worth, simply by virtue of the fact that I was made in God’s image. Apart from Him, I am meaningless — I’m a bunch of clay and dust, not really amounting to much of anything — but God values us. And because He exists, I know that every little thing I do will have some meaning in eternity.

If believing in a God who invites us to “taste” Him to see whether He is good or not, who acts upon our hearts, and who opens our eyes to so much more than before we believed … if all that is a crutch, then how much more of a crutch is imagined meaning, clung to only to help those through life who reject God but are unable to come to grips with the nihilism which must ultimately be grappled with.

31 thoughts on “Clinging to the Crutch of Make-believe Meaning”

  1. I’m sorry, and with all due respect, but from any objective viewpoint, you are doing exactly what Mr. Bird does.

    Except you deny the physical evidence of the universe in which we live.

  2. If anything exists at all, then God (in some form or another) must exist. The universe is incapable of creating itself (it would have to already exist in order to perform the action of creating itself), nor would the Big Bang be capable of causing itself (objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force). There must be an unmoved Mover, an uncaused Cause.

    Of course, that heavily depends on whether or not anything exists at all. Descartes figured that out for us, though, when he came to the conclusion Cogito ergo sum, or “I think; therefore, I am.” I can doubt my existence, but that doubt requires a doubter, the thought a thinker. So, I exist because I can doubt, because I can think. If I exist, it’s only a matter of following the philosophical trail down the line until one is left with no other option than the existence of God.

    [edit to add] Incidentally, if God does not exist and everything is meaningless, why does anyone continue listening to evolutionists? It is, according to their own world view, meaningless and of no value unless they deceive themselves into imagining some kind of worth, first for themselves and then for the arguments they posit.

  3. “If anything exists at all, then God (in some form or another) must exist…There must be an unmoved Mover, an uncaused Cause.”

    This reasoning is just another way of saying the speaker cannot imagine eternity. Why can not the universe have always existed???

    “nor would the Big Bang be capable of causing itself (objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force)”

    It is not clear that the “laws” of the universe were necessarily in force prior to the big bang. If one finds god at this moment in history, I have no argument. Also, if the laws of the universe did apply, I’m not clear that the pressure that would exist at the center of the singularity wouldn’t cause the object to not be at “rest” (all that energy at the center).

    “It is, according to their own world view, meaningless and of no value unless they deceive themselves into imagining some kind of worth, first for themselves and then for the arguments they posit.”

    I don’t fully understand the insistence that evolution per force requires existence to be meaningless.

    I have never felt my existence to be meaningless. Or, more accurately, purposeless. If I am “deceiving myself into imagining some kind of worth”, I am doing it no more so than you are.

    And, again, I do not need to deny the physical evidence of the universe in which we live to find my purpose.

  4. You’re accusing a Christian who believes in not only an eternal God as not being able to imagine eternity? The concept of eternity is by no means strange to me.

    You say that the law of inertia doesn’t preclude the Big Bang’s occurrence, but based upon what? Unfounded speculation to support preconceived cosmological ideas? How is that any less “denying the physical evidence of the universe in which we live” than what Christians supposedly do?

    If the Big Bang is what we must believe in, what caused it? Why did it happen 15 billion years ago rather than a few googol years ago?

    If the Big Bang was the explosion of a singularity containing all matter & energy, why wouldn’t the known physical laws apply to it? After all, gravity was in effect. Why wouldn’t inertia?

    Further, you state that evolution doesn’t necessarily require nihilism. However, if evolution is true and if the world operates only according to naturalistic principles and if the intervention of supernatural beings is precluded, who or what decides what is meaningful? There are people out there claiming the earth is to be valued and people are a virus that needs wiped out — or at least severely limited. (Those same people paradoxically don’t commit suicide, which leads me to question their sincerity, but I digress…)

    If the only point that a supreme being can be appealed to is the uncaused cause of the Big Bang, does that necessarily give us value? We’re still cosmological accidents, and if we were planned for, we wouldn’t know it. Buried in a yard apart from humanity, a diamond has no worth — worms won’t care, animals won’t care, the dirt won’t care, not even the diamond will care. It’s value is extrinsic, applied to it by us. Likewise, if we are to have value, from where does it come? Ourselves? If we are free to assign our own values, then we are free to say we are more valuable than others. We are free to believe others have no value, that we are of infinite value. And so on.

    Can such value, if there is no objective scale, really be said to be meaningful, when such abuses of it are perfectly justified by virtue of the fact they aren’t deviating from an objective norm?

    I know you’ve never felt your existence to be meaningless. Most humans feel the same way. We know and understand value and meaning because we were created by and in the image of a meaningful God.

    Finally, I do not think I am denying the physical evidence when I say that I believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent, that I find meaning and purpose because of Him.

  5. “You say that the law of inertia doesn’t preclude the Big Bang’s occurrence, but based upon what?”

    If we assume that the laws apply, then gravity functions and the middle of the singularity would be under extreme pressure and, so, extremely high temperature. This is not a description of an object at rest.

    If we assume that the laws do not apply, then anything is possible.

    “If the Big Bang was the explosion of a singularity containing all matter & energy, why wouldn’t the known physical laws apply to it?”

    It is not established that the laws applied to it. It is possible that science will, at some future date, establish that they did. But as it stands right now (or as of the date of publication of the last thing I read on the subject), science can only establish that the laws apply back to a few nanoseconds after the actual bang. So, of course, from that moment on back, science is only speculating.

    “However, if evolution is true and if the world operates only according to naturalistic principles and if the intervention of supernatural beings is precluded, who or what decides what is meaningful?”

    Everyone decides for themselves. Which is, of course, exactly what everyone does.

    “We’re still cosmological accidents”

    No, we are not. The universe is structured in such a way that we are inevitable. In that first second after the big bang, the laws exist. When two oxygen atoms come in proximity with a hydrogen atom under the proper circumstances, water will exist. This was true before oxygen existed.

    In the same way, if any of a nearly numberless combinations of certain amino acids comes together in the right circumstances, then the bearer has a given trait.**

    Life is not an accident. We are not an accident. We are inevitable (although it can be argued that it was not inevitable that we look just this way).

    “Likewise, if we are to have value, from where does it come? Ourselves? If we are free to assign our own values, then we are free to say we are more valuable than others. We are free to believe others have no value, that we are of infinite value. And so on.”

    Seems like this pretty much describes the actual situation. Everyone determines for themselves how much value they have. Some think they have none and commit suicide and others believe their value exceeds that of everyone else and so no one likes them. Most of us believe we are of equal value.

    “Can such value, if there is no objective scale, really be said to be meaningful, when such abuses of it are perfectly justified by virtue of the fact they aren’t deviating from an objective norm?”

    I find it it meaningful in my way.

    “We know and understand value and meaning because we were created by and in the image of a meaningful God.”

    And you fine it meaningful in your way.

    “I do not think I am denying the physical evidence when I say that I believe in a God who is both immanent and transcendent, that I find meaning and purpose because of Him.”

    That statement of belief may not require a denial of physical reality, but we both know that that statement does not constitute the full extent of your beliefs.

    ** This paragraph was edited. I had started it talking in generalities and ended it specifically, so I edited it to end in a generality.

  6. Okay, so if we all just establish our own meaning, why not just admit meaning is meaningless? If I can’t know for sure according to some objective standard outside myself that what I believe is true, then whatever truth I ascribe to it would be ultimately futile. Ditto whatever meaning you come up with, whatever meaning Richard Dawkins imagines, and so on (and we don’t all need to be named “Richard” for that to hold true, either).

    If relativism is the accepted norm, nihilism is the truth and everyone else is deviating therefrom. In other words, everyone would be guilty of having crutches which make life worth living, not just the religious and certainly not just Christians.

    Also, you’ve mentioned before that you believe we’re inevitable. If I slip a coin a certain amount of times, it isn’t chance which determines how often it lands on heads; rather, a myriad of factors — including atmospheric density, force of the flip, starting state (heads or tales), starting height, and so on. Under controlled conditions, heads could be achieved with a 100% rate. “Chance” indeed is illusory and should be counted as valid as luck. I won’t deny that the odds of something happening can be measured.

    So, given the many different possible ways for matter to expand after the Big Bang, it happened in a certain way which ultimately led to the existence of life on earth. That it happened does not create purpose — and if it did, it wouldn’t ascribe to us any more meaning than anything else in the universe — whatever degree of specialness we perceive is imagined as there is no transcendent being ascribing to certain things more value than others.

    In other words, there’s no way to know I have any more value than a piece of sand.

    Finally, per the initial singularity… Would there be a difference between it and a black hole? The more matter a black hole contains, the cooler it is. “All matter” would certainly make for a cold black hole. Unable to “feed” on more matter (what else would there be?), the black hole slowly evaporates by giving off radiation, shrinking in size, and getting hotter and hotter, eventually evaporating completely in a burst of gamma rays.

    But the initial singularity exploded into matter? How?

    Reminds me of the space-saving storage bags on TV. Suck all the air out to store the stuff, then open it up and wow, your clothes come right back to their original size. :)

  7. I was going to say the same as senior..

    What is the difference from your understanding of meaning and mine? You have invented a whole host of things to believe in and give meaning to in and so have I. What is the difference?

    I think it would useful to look at the two view points.

    We both look at the world around us and look for meaning. It is a natural thing to do.

    Now you have looked around and either due to the family / culture you were born into or due to some psychological experience you decided that of all the gods to chose from you chose the Christian mythology with all it entails. (you could have chosen any of the other pantheons.. allah.. brahma.. zeus.. odin.. but you decided to be atheist about those gods and not the christian variety)

    With all the trappings of the Christian baggage comes the old and new testaments. I notice from your postings that you seem to hold the old testament to be true. Now forget for the moment that the old testament is full of some of the most hideous and atrocious examples of behaviour ever committed to witting (massacre of the 1st born, massacre of the revellers at the floor of mount Sinai, sacrifice of daughters to the mob to save a guest from a good rodgering etc) and contradicts itself regularly (the 1st 2 chapters of genesis for examplle with 2 complete contradictory accounts of creation!) but dont let this stop you taking it as your moral compass. So you simply read the book and decide that this gives you meaning. As time goes on I guess you also had some spooky coincidences that you attribute to divine intervention (perhaps you prayed for someone and they got better and perhaps a few other psychological experiences.

    From this jumble of inputs you pull meaning. Meaning based on writtings from long dead people with very limited understanding of the world around them.

    On the other hand the atheist looks at the world and uses reasoning to best deduce how we got here. Our understanding is not perfect and we hope it gets better. We are always open to the possibility that we are wrong and this is a trilling possibility. We look at the world and all its glory and intricacies and we don’t explain this magnificence away as the work of a giant sky fairy. It is more magnificent as it has evolved over millions of years and not at the click of a supernatural entities fingers.

    We find ourselves as a dominant species on a planet. We can tell that we have clearly evolved from other species some of which are extinct (I guess god did not make them very well). We are aware and conscious in a way that no other animal on the planet appears to be. You make the claim that this leads to a nihilistic conclusion. Well, as a rational thinking thing that is up to you. Personally, I see it as an amazing, unique opportunity for our species to make the world in any manner we see fit. We can cooperate and work together for a better prosperous future or we can destroy and exterminate (like they do in the old testament.) It is up to us. There is nothing else. Live with it.

    You can invent any myth you like. I just wish you would pick one that was at least a nice myth with less killing.

    The meaning we attribute is more important because it is our decision and the from some ancient book in much the same way that it is morally better to do right because you have decided that it is the right thing to do and not in fear of divine punishment.

    Running out of time – had best post this..

  8. “so if we all just establish our own meaning, why not just admit meaning is meaningless? If I can’t know for sure according to some objective standard outside myself that what I believe is true, then whatever truth I ascribe to it would be ultimately futile…If relativism is the accepted norm, nihilism is the truth”

    But WHY do we all establish our own meaning?? It MAY be because the evolved universe bestows no meaning upon us, so we have to make it up. Or it MAY be because the true meaning isn’t knowable.

    And what of the fact that the vast majority of people look for meaning? And that the vast majority of people FIND it (at least for themselves)??

    Just because we cannot show what the meaning is, just because we cannot prove that there is any meaning at all, it does not follow that nihilism is the truth. It does not follow that there is no meaning.

    I guess you can argue that if it is unknowable that that is the same as not existing. But just because it is unknowable, that doesn’t mean it isn’t guessable. And this is what people do. We guess. We search and think and discuss until we find the meaning that we think works. And for millions, this is very successful. Some find Christianity, some Buddhism, some Theism, some their own little versions.

    There are countless people believing different things with equal success. You find complete fulfillment in your beliefs, but the truth is that many people find equally complete fulfillment in completely different beliefs.

    “That it happened does not create purpose – and if it did, it wouldn’t ascribe to us any more meaning than anything else in the universe – whatever degree of specialness we perceive is imagined as there is no transcendent being ascribing to certain things more value than others.

    In other words, there’s no way to know I have any more value than a piece of sand.”

    Really??? You can go to the beach and run handfuls of sand between your fingers and perceive that each grain of sand is as “valuable” as you are if there is no god???

    This strikes me as deliberately obtuse. You are obviously much more complex and sophisticated. You have motive. You can think! You can communicate!

    This is cause for concern that you need a God to establish that you are more valuable than a grain of sand.

    As to the singularity. Again, science doesn’t know. I’m sure I don’t know. Historically, this is where people find god…in the places that are not explainable. So, until the singularity is explained, if ever, it seems a reasonable place to find god.

    As to black holes, I don’t know that much about them. I would only point out that matter and energy cannot be destroyed but can be converted into each other.

  9. Andy, you write:

    “Now you have looked around and either due to the family / culture you were born into or due to some psychological experience you decided that of all the gods to chose from you chose the Christian mythology with all it entails.”

    Or, due to God’s saving grace, Rick, and every other Christian, chose God. How convenient that you left that one out. Of course, you would have to affirm God’s existence in order to go that option, but since you deem it unworthy of consideration, you pass over it.

    And, for clarification, just because Rick accepts God, doesn’t mean he accepts “all [Christianity] entails.” I would assume that you, of all people, would know not to make generalizations.

  10. My point is that if Rick had been born in India, Iran etc he would not have been a christian.

    as for gods saving grace you seem to imply that god decides who he is going to give this too and damn the rest. seems a little harsh to me.

    i have studied religion / theology for years and am quite sure that there is no god. if i woke up one day to find a neon sign painted over the sky and signed by god then i would happily accept that i was wrong.

    One of the biggest problems i think Christians (or anyone who believes in a personal god) has is the problem of evil. i have not seen a single satisfactory explanation. More importantly I think the death of infants is the main hole in Christian theology. If you believe that you have been put in earth to exercise your free will and love god and if you do good you will be rewarded and if you do bad you will be punished. This is all well and good except in the case of infants. It is clearly not fair by any stretch of the imagination that someone who lives hours / weeks or even a few years is to be treated in the same way as those who live a life time. For this system to be fair everyone should have an equal chance to do the right thing. This clearly is not the case and the whole system if flawed. A god should be be capable of producing a flawed system.

  11. Wow, lots to reply to. :) Awesome. I’m going to hold off for a day or two, just to collect my thoughts and let my sleep schedule return to normal from working a week of overnights.

    That said, Andy, you said you studied theology? I question how sincere or thorough you were in those studies — the “problem of evil” and the apparent contradiction of Genesis 1 and 2 are very easily resolved.

    The problem of evil is answered by sin. The problem of infant deaths is answered elsewhere, so forgive me for not reinventing the wheel on that one.

    Genesis 2 is simply a more detailed account, focusing in on those things which are more relevant to man than the generalized 7-day overview of Genesis 1. Indeed, such overview pours over into chapter 2, as seen in verses 1-3. Then Moses shifted focus — God blessed the sabbath and rested, he tells us, then proceeds to explain in detail “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created” — how that God brought forth plants, made a man, placed him in a garden, and so on. A little more elsewhere.

    Oh, and one last thing, had I been born in another country, if I was still one of God’s elect, then yes, I would have become a Christian. All those who the Father gives to Christ will come to Him, wherever they may be. That’s basic teaching from John 6.

  12. “That said, Andy, you said you studied theology? I question how sincere or thorough you were in those studies – the “problem of evil” and the apparent contradiction of Genesis 1 and 2 are very easily resolved.”

    sincere? as i said in the last post i have never come across a single explanation for the problem of evil which was not a naive cop out. ‘sin’ is a naive cop out. (as is the contradiction link you sent ” They didn’t need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.” lol that is funny. i cant help but think if the writers of the chapter 1 (the one witten as a poem) were aware of the woman from rib story then they would not have thought to mention it. but then again perhaps they also thought the it”didn’t need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.” lol again.)

    Sin is NO ANSWER to the problem of evil. It explains why men commit evil and god lets them get away with it but does not explain natural evil in any which way or form. Sin is no explanation for a 1 year old child being eaten alive by a parasitic disease. Sin is no answer for a random accident taking someone’s life. sin is no answer for why wasps plant their eggs inside caterpillars which then eat their way out of the caterpillar. nature is violent and unforgiving on a staggering scale. Think of the millions of species on the planet. very few of those billions of organisms get to live their full term. they are nearly all eaten at some point by something. This is evil on a grand scale. Only the sickest most twisted being could have ‘designed’ this system. and let us remember that this was going on for millions of years before man came onto the scene. it was not our fault. and if it was our sin that created evil then it is not fair to inflict this on innocent species around the planet.

    The explanation you directed me to does not answer my point. I care not whether (disturbed in my opinion) christians believe a baby is going to rot in hell or not but i am concerned about the fairness issue. If god was all loving, powerful, blah blah then he could only be capable of creating a fair system. the system is not fair. therefore god is not blah blah blah.

    incidentally how did small pox survive noahs ark? did he have test tubes?

    oh and i am very interested in hearing your thoughts on the genocidal tendencies of Moses.

    incidentally the study of theology is not the study of christianity which many outsiders seem to think is the case. it was interesting to note that of all the christians who started the course there were not many committed christians left at the end of the 4 years. once you start to look at this with a critical eye it all starts to fall apart and you see it for the house of cards it really is.

    “Oh, and one last thing, had I been born in another country, if I was still one of God’s elect, then yes, I would have become a Christian. All those who the Father gives to Christ will come to Him, wherever they may be. That’s basic teaching from John 6.”

    there is a good chance you would not even have heard of jesus if you had been born. this sort of egomaniac view of “i am chosen” is not really helpful to the discussion. like i said before are you implying that god deliberatly damns those who he does not reveal himself to?

  13. No; their actions condemn themselves. You are showing a great lack of understanding of what sin is — its effects, the curses it brings, and so on.

    I agree — nature is cruel, but only because the earth is cursed. There is is a reason why the prophets could look forward to the consummation of history and see that one day the wolf will lay down with the lamb in peace, that children will coexist with asps with no harm. All the cruelty of nature is linked to the fact that he who was given dominion over nature sinned. Mankind continues to sin today, and continues to have to endure the cruelty inherent in the curse.

  14. After much delay (my apologies), here’s a response to Senior’s most recent comment (from May 19th… *eek*):

    “so if we all just establish our own meaning, why not just admit meaning is meaningless? If I can’t know for sure according to some objective standard outside myself that what I believe is true, then whatever truth I ascribe to it would be ultimately futile…If relativism is the accepted norm, nihilism is the truth”

    But WHY do we all establish our own meaning?? It MAY be because the evolved universe bestows no meaning upon us, so we have to make it up. Or it MAY be because the true meaning isn’t knowable.

    Well, my honest answer would be that people ascertain their own meanings because they have rejected the general revelation of God in nature, “suppress[ing] the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18, NKJV).

    Why are we sorrowful when a child is kidnapped and murdered? Was the act inherently wrong? Or does its “wrongness” depend on us to make it wrong? If the latter is the case, then the murderer’s feelings that the act was right are equally valid.

    Such relativistic morals break down rather quickly — two opposing truths cannot both be true, according to the logical law of noncontradiction.

    If an act is capable of being truthfully defined as right or wrong, there must be an objective standard by which to determine it. That alone precludes the empty meaninglessness of atheism, secular humanism, agnosticism, and any other system which denies that there is a transcendent something by which truth may be determined.

    And what of the fact that the vast majority of people look for meaning? And that the vast majority of people FIND it (at least for themselves)??

    God has placed within us a desire to seek (Acts 17:26-28); most of us never find Him — our sinful nature precludes it — and so the vast majority who latch on to something which is “true” in their eyes fall for the same deceptive tricks Satan has been using since Eden.

    Just because we cannot show what the meaning is, just because we cannot prove that there is any meaning at all, it does not follow that nihilism is the truth. It does not follow that there is no meaning.

    You’re on to something good there: The only way to honestly escape nihilism is for there to be something which is true.

    That statement alone slams the door on religious pluralism, moral relativism, and any of a variety of other systems of thought which allow for the preposterous notion of multiple contradictory truths, coexisting as if each were as valid as the next.

    I guess you can argue that if it is unknowable that that is the same as not existing. But just because it is unknowable, that doesn’t mean it isn’t guessable. And this is what people do. We guess. We search and think and discuss until we find the meaning that we think works. And for millions, this is very successful. Some find Christianity, some Buddhism, some Theism, some their own little versions.

    If, as Fox Mulder’s famous poster reminded viewers, “the truth is out there,” it is a cruel fate indeed that we are born with a desire to seek and find the truth, without any hope of ever knowing what the truth actually is.

    I realize that’s simply anecdote and doesn’t prove a point. However, we do know that everyone can’t be right. Something is right, however, and if having a stake in that something is critical to our experience of eternity (we are clearly created to tap into such a truth, as you have pointed out in mentioning the nearly universal search for it), I’d say we should be a bit less cavalier about it than simply allowing for anyone’s version of it to be acceptable.

    There are countless people believing different things with equal success. You find complete fulfillment in your beliefs, but the truth is that many people find equally complete fulfillment in completely different beliefs.

    The ends justify the means? Is personal fulfillment all there is to it? Can any means be used in reaching this fulfillment?

    Those are legitimate questions which can only be answered if there is one, well, factual truth, which is often obfuscated by a forest of errant truths.

    “That it happened does not create purpose – and if it did, it wouldn’t ascribe to us any more meaning than anything else in the universe – whatever degree of specialness we perceive is imagined as there is no transcendent being ascribing to certain things more value than others.

    In other words, there’s no way to know I have any more value than a piece of sand.”

    Really??? You can go to the beach and run handfuls of sand between your fingers and perceive that each grain of sand is as “valuable” as you are if there is no god???

    If Christ is not risen, I am destined to return to the dust. Whatever value I imagined for myself while living will, presumably, vanish, and I will be revealed for what I was my whole life: dirt.

    Sure, we can decorate that dirt up, we can think highly of it, and value or memorialize others, but in the end, well, we’re dirt.

    I guess the question then would be, are the chemical components of our body worth any more than the sand of the sea, but again we’re faced with a question we can’t answer: whose scale do we use, and does such a scale even exist to answer such a question?

    This strikes me as deliberately obtuse. You are obviously much more complex and sophisticated. You have motive. You can think! You can communicate!

    A helium atom is more complex than a hydrogen atom; which has more inherent value?

    What makes motive, thought, and communication valuable? Were I rendered unconscious — temporarily losing the abilities to think, plan, and communicate — would I suddenly be less valuable?

    Is value dependent on ability? What about the comatose? What about those in a catatonic stupor?

    This is cause for concern that you need a God to establish that you are more valuable than a grain of sand.

    Humans are valuable because we are made in the image of God. Without that extrinsic source of value, what is it, then, that makes man greater than the sum of his parts? And again, on what basis is that value any more substantial than the whole of a rock, a tree, or even a personal computer?

    It is interesting that the parts of a computer, reduced to basic components, still retain value, particularly metals. Humans, as stated, don’t likewise reduce to much of value at all.

    What is it about humans that makes us so irreducibly valuable?

    As to the singularity. Again, science doesn’t know. I’m sure I don’t know. Historically, this is where people find god…in the places that are not explainable. So, until the singularity is explained, if ever, it seems a reasonable place to find god.

    That certainly is one of the virtues of Christianity; it doesn’t rely on unknowns to provide space for its deity. Rather, we recognize that He has set this world’s course, and that nature itself testifies of His existence.

    Yet getting creative to fill an unknown is exactly what Big Bang theorists must do; how does matter escape a singularity with such gravity that even light can’t escape from it? What kept the singularity from simply evaporating into nothing, converting all contained matter into radiation? Why are we to believe that dust clouds can produce enough gravity to create stars (and they can), yet virtually limitless gravity can’t prevent the greatest explosion imaginable? I suppose one could say that gravity wasn’t operative back then, yet a singularity by definition is caused by gravity causing matter to collapse in on itself.

  15. “Well, my honest answer would be that people ascertain their own meanings because they have rejected the general revelation of God in nature”

    How can anyone have rejected the general revelation of God in nature?? You have posted repeatedly that none come to Jesus but that the Father drags them.

    So, from your truth, people ascertain their own meanings because “the general revelation of God in nature” is not available to them.

    And I have to be amused by the phrase “the general revelation of God in nature”. Is your God revealed in nature? or in Biblical scripture? The revelations do not agree.

    “Why are we sorrowful when a child is kidnapped and murdered? Was the act inherently wrong?”

    Yes, and this isn’t hard to see. I was once asked by a minister “How do you know what sin is without the Bible to tell you” And my response was (is): “It’s not that hard”.

    To kidnap a child and/or kill a child? This creates pain and turmoil and loss. That this is wrong is clear. There are very few who would argue this. There is no need to posit a god to make this a wrong.

    “Such relativistic morals break down rather quickly – two opposing truths cannot both be true, according to the logical law of noncontradiction.”

    Two opposing truths cannot both be objectively true, but they can both easily be true for the people that hold to them. We all have our own truths and so it has been for millennia.

    “You’re on to something good there: The only way to honestly escape nihilism is for there to be something which is true.”

    And the vast majority of the planet has some kind of grasp on whatever that truth is. Very few would not agree that the kidnapping and/or killing of the child is wrong. You yourself have a hand on truth, but it probably isn’t quite the truth you believe it to be. But that’s OK, because it works for you.

    “it is a cruel fate indeed that we are born with a desire to seek and find the truth, without any hope of ever knowing what the truth actually is.”

    Perhaps. But since that is the situation, maybe it isn’t cruel fate, maybe it is the point. We can’t know, but we can believe. We each believe what works for each of us. How well it works may be an indication of how close to truth we are.

    “The ends justify the means? Is personal fulfillment all there is to it? Can any means be used in reaching this fulfillment?”

    Yes, and no. There is nothing stopping someone from “finding personal fulfillment” in kidnapping and killing a child, for example. And in fact, some do. Whether they have a handle on something that is objectively true (if anything is) or not, we won’t know in this lifetime. But the overwhelming majority of people on this planet would agree that the kidnapper/killer does not have a handle on any legitimate truths.

    “If Christ is not risen, I am destined to return to the dust. Whatever value I imagined for myself while living will, presumably, vanish, and I will be revealed for what I was my whole life: dirt.”

    And that is truth for you. Again, it is a truth that is unavailable to most of humanity. But a risen Christ is not required for us to be something more than dust (although I think most would agree that our bodies are nothing more than dust). I have no expectation that I will completely cease to exist when I die.

    “What makes motive, thought, and communication valuable? Were I rendered unconscious – temporarily losing the abilities to think, plan, and communicate – would I suddenly be less valuable?

    Is value dependent on ability? What about the comatose? What about those in a catatonic stupor?”

    Now you are being cute. Let’s deal with normal people first. You don’t like motive, thought, and communication? Self-awareness? Consciousness? You don’t see an obvious difference between people and even the most conversant chimp??

    We clearly occupy a different strata than the other lifeforms on this planet. Value?? I know one person who comes close to arguing that people have less value than other animals, but there’s always an extreme out there somewhere.

    Maybe all of us are all valuable to ensure that me, the individual, is valuable. I’m sure some find value that way. I don’t want to be unplugged when I’m in a coma, so I argue that people in comas are as valuable as those who are not.

    But the truth is, one must argue that we are all equally valuable, because as soon as one argues otherwise, there is no place to land. So we are all equally valuable, regardless of ability or comatose state.

    “Rather, we recognize that He has set this world’s course, and that nature itself testifies of His existence.”

    Nature testifies to the falsity of your Genesis.

    “Yet getting creative to fill an unknown is exactly what Big Bang theorists must do;”

    I don’t argue that. The rules, as we currently understand them, that govern the universe did not exist prior to a few nanoseconds after the big bang. Your concerns about the singularity violating the laws of physics are misplaced. The laws of physics (as we know them) did not apply.

  16. Anyone who needs a god and a bible to know that it is wrong to kidnap and kill children needs to reassess their life and belief structure. How warped have you become?

    Perhaps the problem is that you have a holy book that revels in the death of children and have forgotten that basic humanity is enough for most people to realise that is it wrong.

  17. Andy Bird: How warped have I become? Well, I believe that someone who kidnaps a child or murders a child — or a combination thereof — deserves to be executed by the state, by virtue of the fact that the child is made in the image of God. If that is warped, then I am unashamedly warped.

    How does the Bible revel in the death of anyone? You forget that the existence of God and the afterlife must be taken into consideration. From an atheistic world view in which there is no hope, yes, the slaughterings of the Old Testament and the coming Apocalypse are senseless. Insert God, the afterlife, and all the things inherent therein, and you have a system in which justice will be meted out in the end perfectly. That alone makes the tragic a whole lot less, well, tragic.

    Finally, why does “basic humanity” reveal anything about morality? I know the answer, but do you? What is it about humanity that simply screams that not only are we special, but that there is a right or wrong and that most people & cultures have a fairly good grasp on what those mores are.

    Do you take care not to step on ants? Do you feel remorse for the insects killed on millions of automotive windows? Do disinfectants’ promises to kill “99.9% of bacteria” leave you breathless in sorrow?

    What makes the taking of a human life so much more significant than any other life?

    Be honest, Andy. You cannot answer that. No atheist can.

    If humanity is special because it thinks its special, then you have on your hands an indefensible and logically circular argument. Hang on to it all you want to, but at least be intellectually honest enough that as an atheist, you are deceiving yourself into thinking humanity is special.

    It’s ironic that in your deception you are right, though; humanity is more special than all the beasts of the earth combined. One human soul is more valuable than this whole world — and probably all the other worlds of the universe combined as well. It is our Godlikeness that makes us special, that gives us a unique place among every other creature.

    You can ignore that if you want to, but the conclusions of your logic are inescapable. Why is it okay for a goldfish to eat their young, yet not for human parents? Why is it okay for black widow females to eat their mates but not for human wives? Why is it okay for a variety of animals to fight and even kill each other over territory, but not for humans?

    All I’m asking is that you admit that nihilism is the conclusion of atheistic thought, that any grasping at meaning are simply an exercise in creativity.

  18. “All I’m asking is that you admit that nihilism is the conclusion of atheistic thought, that any grasping at meaning are simply an exercise in creativity.”

    Sorry, but that is utter nonsense.

    Your world view requires that you believe that anyone who fails to share it cannot find meaning, but all of us who do not share your world view know better.

    You might as well be telling us that we cannot hold a thought in our head. We know we can.

    And, again, your world view fails to provide any meaning to, at least, half the population of the planet.

  19. Senior: First let me state I haven’t forgotten the comment you made last night.

    However, in regard to your latest comment, I submit that you couldn’t be more wrong.

    1) I never said that anyone who disagrees with my worldview could not find meaning. No, I stated specifically that an atheist has no grounds for meaning. I believe their attempts are misguided but, Muslims find meaning from Allah, Buddhists find meaning from self-sacrifice, and so on. Even you, Senior, as a theist, can point to something transcendent, if you so chose, as the source of meaning at our level of existence. An atheist however has no such recourse. The only meaning they can point to is self-referential. There is simply nothing an atheist can appeal to except an almost spiritual appeal to “humanity” as if it were some transcendent construct. Atheism leaves humanity alone, equal in value to the 99.9% of germs the toilet bowl cleaner below our sink claims it kills.

    2) Of course you have thoughts in your head. “Cogito ergo sum.” Thought requires a thinker.

    Naturally, the line of reasoning that I have meaning because I — indeed, even others — find meaning in me could be used. However, this meaning is very limited. It does nothing to actually make humanity more valuable than any other creature. There’s no transcendent quality to it. Indeed, the only thing it logically proves is man is a creature of pride, able to think himself higher than other creatures.

    3) How does my worldview fail to provide meaning to at least half of the world’s population? Every human life is meaningful, being created in the image of God. Likewise, every human life glorifies God — whether through the manifestation of His mercy or His wrath. That thought is pretty unpalatable to some — and rightly so, perhaps — yet one cannot reject it as invalid without an objective source of truth to appeal to. I suppose that is the beauty of relativism from a Christian’s perspective — an honest relativist must admit that the Christian’s viewpoint is at least as valid as his or her own. To fail to do so reveals a whole in relativism: it doesn’t work if there’s an objective truth of any kind.

  20. “No, I stated specifically that an atheist has no grounds for meaning.”

    Fair enough. I’m not convinced of the validity of that statement, either. I’d have to ask an atheist.

    But I don’t recall feeling that life was meaningless when I was an atheist.

    “Naturally, the line of reasoning that I have meaning because I – indeed, even others – find meaning in me could be used. However, this meaning is very limited. It does nothing to actually make humanity more valuable than any other creature. There’s no transcendent quality to it. Indeed, the only thing it logically proves is man is a creature of pride, able to think himself higher than other creatures.”

    I’m not sure I agree with this either. I don’t see the logic that it only proves man is a creature of pride.

    I don’t understand how you can claim there is no transcendent quality to it. How would you know?? When I was an atheist, I often had feelings of transcendent quality.

    You seem a bit eager to state what others must be feeling or thinking. But you really have no basis for these claims.

    “How does my worldview fail to provide meaning to at least half of the world’s population? Every human life is meaningful, being created in the image of God. Likewise, every human life glorifies God – whether through the manifestation of His mercy or His wrath.”

    Well, you’ll forgive me if I find no meaning in the “knowledge” that my life glorifies God through the manifestation of His wrath. I suspect you would have trouble finding someone who does.

    “an honest relativist must admit that the Christian’s viewpoint is at least as valid as his or her own”

    My only complaint with your viewpoint is your insistence that it is the only valid one. Well, and the fact that you deny the physical evidence of the universe around you.

  21. One very brief comment, and then I’m off to bed.

    Well, you’ll forgive me if I find no meaning in the “knowledge” that my life glorifies God through the manifestation of His wrath. I suspect you would have trouble finding someone who does.

    Well, I’ve read plenty of quotes from those who toy around with anarchism, Satanism, and other such systems in which they joke about going to Hell and being proud of it… “It’s the fun place to be,” after all.

    However, it comes as no surprise to me that those who God’s wrath will be poured out upon do not glory in that thought. Why should they? For one to truly enjoy the glory of God would seem to require two admissions: first that He is, and second that in Jesus Christ was the fullness of God’s glory.

    In other words, the person wouldn’t be one of those on the wrath side of things, and so your point seems moot.

    (Does a person have to find enjoyment in being on the “wrong side of the law” in order for the system to function, for judgment to be meted out, and for the judge to be honored in his work?)

    Okay, a more than just a brief comment, but before I forget the thoughts:

    1) I didn’t say atheists feel meaningless. My argument is that whatever meaning they do feel, there is no logical reason for it.

    2) To invoke a transcendent anything is to lift the argument from the realm of naturalism — an area in which atheists feel at home — into supernaturalism, a realm where science has no stronghold and anything is possible. Suddenly empiricism is insufficient to explain the world around us, and we must rely on — of all things — faith. I think at that point we’d lose any staunch atheists.

    3) I don’t deny the evidence of the world around me. The evidence is there and exists just as truly as the keys beneath my fingers. However, I believe that the evidence fits biblical account better than a naturalistic one. Admittedly, one must invoke the supernatural in order to do this. Without God, for example, there’s no way that whole Noah’s ark thing would have worked out, even if the flood really did happen. The supernatural is the wildcard; invoke it, and rationalism and empiricism fly out the window faster than a speeding bullet, so to speak. The universe is no longer operating according to naturalistic laws; rather, it is open to the hand of He who made it, who is capable of stretching out the Heavens (giving the appearance of motion — no Big Bang needed ) and so on.

    If you want to invoke a transcendent something to explain a sense of meaning which has no basis in naturalistic thought, why is my invocation of the transcendent any less valid?

    4) If I didn’t believe my way was the right way, I wouldn’t believe what I do. It doesn’t make sense to waste one’s time believing something that one believes to be equally valid to thousands of contradictory belief statements. If that were the case, my faith truly would be a crutch, leaned upon simply to provide an apparently false sense of hope to a life otherwise void of transcendent meaning.

    If no single faith is true in a transcendent sense, how can any of them be true at all? Truth cannot be contradictory, yet the myriad of faiths certainly are.

    Yet if there is no singularly true faith and all religions are valid for the individual, how is my belief in the One True God and His One True Messiah and that salvation is only by grace through faith in Jesus and that His gospel is to be shared with others any less valid than the Buddhist who lives a life of self-denial and meditation? I have an equal claim to validity as anyone else would, so why claim otherwise? If my beliefs just detailed aren’t as valid as the Hare Krishna’s, upon what basis is that judgment made?

    And now, I’m off to bed. Have a good night.

  22. In reply to Senior’s earlier comment.

    How can anyone have rejected the general revelation of God in nature?? You have posted repeatedly that none come to Jesus but that the Father drags them.

    Rejecting or accepting that God exists isn’t sufficient to save anybody. The devils believe and tremble. Indeed, those who come to Him must first believe that He is, but that knowledge alone isn’t salvific.

    So, from your truth, people ascertain their own meanings because “the general revelation of God in nature” is not available to them.

    It’s available to everyone. According to the Scriptures, it is only the most blind and foolish of men who completely reject the existence of God. But there are a vast array of people who, while they may not believe in Jesus Christ, believe in a deity, which is about as far as nature on its own can bring anyone.

    And I have to be amused by the phrase “the general revelation of God in nature”. Is your God revealed in nature? or in Biblical scripture? The revelations do not agree.

    What does nature tell us, then? Are we not compelled to believe in a standard of right or wrong? Do we not appreciate beauty? Are love, hope, patience, and so on all held as virtues, within and without Christendom? Nature reveals that God is loving and that He cares and so on. It reveals His grandness, His transcendence, His wisdom, and so on.

    All of this is in accord with the biblical account.

    Yes, and this isn’t hard to see. I was once asked by a minister “How do you know what sin is without the Bible to tell you” And my response was (is): “It’s not that hard”.

    To kidnap a child and/or kill a child? This creates pain and turmoil and loss. That this is wrong is clear. There are very few who would argue this. There is no need to posit a god to make this a wrong.

    How are we, then, to decide that pain, loss, and turmoil *aren’t* good things? How is it mankind can make such judgments and believe them to be correct?

    Two opposing truths cannot both be objectively true, but they can both easily be true for the people that hold to them. We all have our own truths and so it has been for millennia.

    We might have our own beliefs, which we believe to be true, but that doesn’t make them true.

    And the vast majority of the planet has some kind of grasp on whatever that truth is. Very few would not agree that the kidnapping and/or killing of the child is wrong. You yourself have a hand on truth, but it probably isn’t quite the truth you believe it to be. But that’s OK, because it works for you.

    So, morality is determined by majority vote, is what what I’m getting here?

    Perhaps. But since that is the situation, maybe it isn’t cruel fate, maybe it is the point. We can’t know, but we can believe. We each believe what works for each of us. How well it works may be an indication of how close to truth we are.

    Majority rules. Pragmatism. But still no logical leap from nihilism to value.

    And that is truth for you. Again, it is a truth that is unavailable to most of humanity. But a risen Christ is not required for us to be something more than dust (although I think most would agree that our bodies are nothing more than dust). I have no expectation that I will completely cease to exist when I die.

    And the reason why you or anyone has that expectation is no secret to me. Such basic knowledge is seemingly inate in that it is so universal. I’ve heard it suggested man should be called Homo religioso or similar due to just how pervasive religious belief is in our culture. What is it that makes people everywhere catch onto the rumors of another world which is greater than our own? Where does that desire come from?

    Now you are being cute. Let’s deal with normal people first. You don’t like motive, thought, and communication? Self-awareness? Consciousness? You don’t see an obvious difference between people and even the most conversant chimp??

    Oh, I do see a difference. A great big gaping difference.

    But if both the chimp & I owe our existence to evolutionary processes, then what makes humanity’s development so special? After all, our origins and our futures are shared with the ostrich, the gnu, and the ant.

    But look out, ’cause I’ve got some opposable thumbs and know how to use ’em!

    We clearly occupy a different strata than the other lifeforms on this planet. Value?? I know one person who comes close to arguing that people have less value than other animals, but there’s always an extreme out there somewhere.

    Is this value self-imagined or is it extrinsic, though? Can evolution account for this uniqueness? In such a system, wouldn’t simple survival and adaptability be the source of value, in which case we’re still on equal grounds with hundreds of thousands of other species which have survived just as long if not longer than we have on this earth (from a naturalistic perspective, of course).

    Maybe all of us are all valuable to ensure that me, the individual, is valuable. I’m sure some find value that way. I don’t want to be unplugged when I’m in a coma, so I argue that people in comas are as valuable as those who are not.

    But there’s still no source of that value other than our own minds. That may be enough to live by, but it really doesn’t amount to much on a philosophical or even logical level.

    But the truth is, one must argue that we are all equally valuable, because as soon as one argues otherwise, there is no place to land. So we are all equally valuable, regardless of ability or comatose state.

    So when are we imparted with value? Birth? Conception? Ah, more muddy waters.

    Nature testifies to the falsity of your Genesis.

    Not if one allows for the supernatural. Looking at the evidence with an eye unwilling to allow for God’s hand, we by nature must then conceptualize naturalistic reasons for things, and we’re getting pretty darn good at spinning those yarns into fancy theories. But the fact of the matter is, we don’t know what the miracle of creation looked like save for a few short lines in the Bible, and we don’t know what specific lasting evidence it would have left. What evidence we do have, rather than finding reason to praise God, we take it and fit into various cosmologies until we find one which could have accounted for all the evidence, despite the fact it never really happened in the first place.

    I don’t argue that. The rules, as we currently understand them, that govern the universe did not exist prior to a few nanoseconds after the big bang. Your concerns about the singularity violating the laws of physics are misplaced. The laws of physics (as we know them) did not apply.

    We’ve plenty of evidence that the laws of physics operate like they should pretty much universally; what evidence is there that we can just toss them out the window to make a theory work? Why isn’t it just admitted that cosmologists have backed themselves into a corner and the Big Bang theory no longer works — it fails to explain what caused it. Was the Big Bang the Causeless Cause?

    I, for one, doubt it.

  23. hang on a minute..

    you said

    “Nature reveals that God is loving and that He cares and so on.”

    yet in a previous post you stated that nature is not the place to look for evidence of gods love because it is cursed (an insane idea btw)

    “Not if one allows for the supernatural.”

    I take it from that you are one of those willing to believe that god put all those pesky dinosaur fossils their just to trick you? It is amazing the lengths people will go to in order to convince themselves of a world view. oh hang on as well as noah having test-tubes for all those sexual transmitted diseases that survived the flood perhaps the ark was like a tardis (of the dr who variety) with enough space for the millions of species we see in the world.

    I have to say that your reasoning is some of the most outlandish I have ever come across.

    I was particularly amused by your justification for all the slaughter in the old testament ie it would be evil unless we take the after life into account! lol remember those people dies before jesus existed so i am guessing their chance of reaching heaven was thin before the isrealites massacred them (at god or moses’ command)

    This whole conversation reminds me of university debates with ‘flat earth’ society types. No matter what you say to them they jump and twist their hypothetical giberish so that facts only reinforce their insane world view.

    you talk of humanity but espouse a system that is inhumane from beginning to end. what kind a religion can believe that babies are born sinful? this is inhumanity on a BIG scale.

    and your views of what an atheist can and cant do or think are laughable. I really do think that it is not till you have thrown off the shackles of Jeudo-Christian mythologies that you can truly begin to open your eyes and see the world for what it is.. amazing, terrible beautiful and old.. very old. and all the more wonderful because it was not created by some giant sky fairy.

    as for science and its understanding of the world. you fail to see that uncertainty and lack of knowledge is what drives scientists and be very thankful about the technological world in which we are having this conversation. the beauty and wonder of science is that we DONT KNOW and are ever seeking. the short coming of religion is that they think they DO KNOW and anyone who thinks otherwise can be condemned to hell. the lack of understanding around the BIG BANG is not a short coming but an acknowledgement that we still have lots to learn. It may well be that in years to come science looks back at our primitive understanding of the early universe and schools kids laugh at the things that cause Hawking et al headaches today. that is what is so wonderful. it may well be that only some future post-human species will be well enough equipped to grapple with the complexities of the universe. no doubt there is will be a few waiting for the end of the world and arguing that the world is flat.

  24. Andy, thanks for the message. I’m mere minutes from stepping out for a few hours to spend time with some friends I haven’t seen in over a year, and I won’t be back until sometime this evening. I’ll try to reply then, if it isn’t too late.

  25. Okay, a little more of a delay than I was hoping, but we were out late last night at our friends’, and their infant was just too fun not to hold a little bit longer once he & I warmed up to each other. :-D

    you said

    “Nature reveals that God is loving and that He cares and so on.”

    yet in a previous post you stated that nature is not the place to look for evidence of gods love because it is cursed (an insane idea btw)

    It’s a paradox, I know. You’ll find Christianity filled with ’em. Indeed, some people make money off of it by printing up T-shirts which have a list of Christian paradoxes on the reverse side. However, as any student of logic knows, a paradox is not a contradiction.

    Yes, nature reveals God. Perhaps I was presumptuous in stating that it reveals His love & mercy; I happen to notice those two aspects everywhere I look, especially in children. However, “the invisible things of [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that [those who suppress the truth unrighteously, vs.18] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

    Yet while nature is able to reveal God’s eternal power and divinity, the effects of the curse given it for man’s sake (Genesis 3:17). Things haven’t changed much. Nowadays, though, we have more technological ways to screw up nature. Man will be man, I suppose.

    I fail to see how such a curse is an “insane idea,” though. If God granted man a perfect world and a pristine garden which he was to tend to, yet he screwed up and did the one simple little thing he wasn’t to do, why shouldn’t have God made difficult man’s tasks by causing the earth to bring forth thorns and thistle, to add a harsh and violent aspect to a world that up until then had known only peace. Now and to this day, men have wrestled with the planet — with animals, with forests, with everything we have here — in order to accomplish our will.

    I take it from that you are one of those willing to believe that god put all those pesky dinosaur fossils their just to trick you? It is amazing the lengths people will go to in order to convince themselves of a world view. oh hang on as well as noah having test-tubes for all those sexual transmitted diseases that survived the flood perhaps the ark was like a tardis (of the dr who variety) with enough space for the millions of species we see in the world.

    1) No, God does not trick man. Fossils are a result of the rapid burial of species which occurred during the noahic flood.

    2) You, an evolutionist, have trouble believing that various microbes couldn’t have survived an all-water environment, only later to develop the ability to be air-born, people-born, etc.?

    3) The ark wouldn’t have had to carry millions of species. Many thousands of kinds or families of animals, sure. One pair of wolves could have speciated into all the hundreds of species of dog we see today; ditto other creatures. Or did you think maybe I’d shy away from the idea of speciation because it is a great boon to evolutionary theory? It’s a great boon to Creationism as well.

    I have to say that your reasoning is some of the most outlandish I have ever come across.

    Thank you. Being so open minded as to be “outlandish” is much better than the “closed-minded” quips I usually get. :D

    I was particularly amused by your justification for all the slaughter in the old testament ie it would be evil unless we take the after life into account! lol remember those people dies before jesus existed so i am guessing their chance of reaching heaven was thin before the isrealites massacred them (at god or moses’ command)

    That theology studying you did, that wasn’t at a public school was it?

    Salvation has always been available, God has always been merciful — to both Jew & Gentile alike, and both Testaments account for that. Admittedly, the Jews were favored on a larger scale.

    God as Creator is allowed in every way to give life, to take life, to decide how lives are taken, and so on. Physical death isn’t nearly as “tragic” or “cruel” as you’re making it out to be. As it was said in Ghostbusters 2, “Death is but a door.”

    View it as cruel if you want to; to be honest, moral judgments such as that don’t carry much weight from someone who has yet to provide any evidence of an objective truth by which to judge anything as an atheist.

    This whole conversation reminds me of university debates with ‘flat earth’ society types. No matter what you say to them they jump and twist their hypothetical giberish so that facts only reinforce their insane world view.

    Yet you participate still. A smart man like you can’t be that bored, can you? :)

    You’re welcome to leave the conversation if you wish, but I’m enjoying it. I started the conversation because I believe that atheists have no objective source of meaning, and I think that has been established repeatedly, despite a number of claims to the contrary, most if not all of which had their source in a sort of sentimentality for humanity rather than in logic. So as far as the purpose or end of this discussion is concerned, I applaud you & Senior for presenting your cases for meaningfulness, but I do not believe either of you offered anything which disconnects honest atheism from nihilism. Admittedly, Senior argues as a theist, so perhaps if you had an atheist compatriot to argue alongside, something more supportive of your argument could have been put forth.

    you talk of humanity but espouse a system that is inhumane from beginning to end.

    You keep saying that, yet you fail to acknowledge how inherently inhumane atheism is. There no longer is a reason, a purpose for our existence, and we’re just another primate hoping to survive generation to generation.

    Yet Christianity believes humans are the crowning point of Creation, the apple of God’s eyes, so to speak. We believe each individual is infinitely valuable, made in the image of God.

    what kind a religion can believe that babies are born sinful? this is inhumanity on a BIG scale.

    I’m sure you understand genetics enough to understand that a baby is composed of both its father and mother and is not spontaneously generated within the womb. So, if a sinful mother + a sinful father (I’m talking about natures here, and not individual sins) has a child, should we expect that child to have a sinful or a righteous nature?

    If a righteous, the mildly destructive and rebellious “testing the boundaries” stages of infants and toddlers would disappear. (So long, terrible twos!) Yet even in the young, sinfulness manifests itself however it is able.

    and your views of what an atheist can and cant do or think are laughable.

    Huh? All I’m saying is that an honest atheist should be able to admit that there are no objective grounds for believing humanity is somehow special, meaningful, or valuable on a level outside of humanity itself. Outside of that, atheists can do whatever and believe what they want.

    I really do think that it is not till you have thrown off the shackles of Jeudo-Christian mythologies that you can truly begin to open your eyes and see the world for what it is.. amazing, terrible beautiful and old.. very old. and all the more wonderful because it was not created by some giant sky fairy.

    What does any of that — or anything in this post I’m replying to, actually — have to do with nihilism not being the logical conclusion of atheism?

    An old ball of dirt covered in living clumps of clay & water which are destined to return to the ball of dirt, which itself is destined to be destroyed when the sun goes nova.

    Such transient wonder isn’t very wonderful, in my opinion. Once no one is around to appreciate it, what value has wonder?

    as for science and its understanding of the world. you fail to see that uncertainty and lack of knowledge is what drives scientists and be very thankful about the technological world in which we are having this conversation. the beauty and wonder of science is that we DONT KNOW and are ever seeking.

    Good golly, we agree on something. :)

    the short coming of religion is that they think they DO KNOW and anyone who thinks otherwise can be condemned to hell.

    Actually, I’m expecting to greet quite a few people in Heaven who believed in evolution, the “Gap Theory,” theistic evolution, and all sorts of other imaginative things while on Earth.

    the lack of understanding around the BIG BANG is not a short coming but an acknowledgement that we still have lots to learn. It may well be that in years to come science looks back at our primitive understanding of the early universe and schools kids laugh at the things that cause Hawking et al headaches today. that is what is so wonderful. it may well be that only some future post-human species will be well enough equipped to grapple with the complexities of the universe. no doubt there is will be a few waiting for the end of the world and arguing that the world is flat.

    Well, I disagree with the “post-human species” bit, I agree with just about everything else you say. Science and the pursuit of human knowledge is a wonderful, wonderful thing. Ironically, the more I learn, the more my faith in Jesus Christ is strengthened.

    If the end of the world doesn’t preclude it, I should hope that someday scientific advancements see asthma cured (I’d love for that to happen in my lifetime lol), to see 1 googolhertz or better computer processors (okay, I exaggerate… Imagine, a computer processor capable of processing a universe’s worth of data in a second! Wow!), interstellar travel (even if only unmanned), robot servants that are incapable of dreaming about becoming our robot overlords, and so on.

    However, in an attempt to divert this discussion into more solid areas of debate…

    In an atheistic worldview, is there an objective reason for the human race being special or in any way meaningful in a level which at least transcends other of the earth’s species, if not the universe itself?

  26. An atheist is simply one who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. “god” may be understood to be any transcendent being — alive or not — which exists at a higher level than the universe itself which is in some way responsible for the universe, its organization, or its goings on.

    I understand atheism to be inexorably linked to naturalism. Perhaps that is too much of a presumption, though it has been the case with most atheists I have spoken with.

  27. Given that definition, I still disagree that atheism is necessarily nihilism. There are still ways to view the universe that bestow meaning on one’s life.

  28. In the interest of defining terms, then, what kind of meaning are you referring to? Intrinsic, extrinsic, transient, transcendent, subjective, objective?

    My worldview provides for an extrinsic, transcendent, objective source of human value, that being God Himself, and such meaning does not seem out of place within my worldview.

  29. From your perspective, your worldview provides for an extrinsic, transcendent, and objective source of human value.

    But from where I’m sitting, there is nothing extrinsic or transcendent about it. I’m not so sure about the objective, either.

    But I do not deny that you find meaning.

    Seems to me that an atheist who finds value for humanity because of our participation in the grandeur of the universe would be likely to argue that his or her faith is also extrinsic (derived from the universe), transcendent, and objective.

    I could see an argument that the atheists meaning is intrinsic as well as extrinsic.

    And from your viewpoint I can see how you might see the atheist’s meaning as lacking, but I don’t see how you can deny it exists.

Leave a Reply to Justin Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

the Rick Beckman archive
Scroll to Top