Purpose and Morals without God

During the past week I read the second chapter of Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig’s book, Reasonable Faith, which is titled “The Absurdity of Life without God”. In it, Dr. Craig discusses what is called in philosophy “the human predicament,” which deals with the value of human life without God.

While reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but think of the post I wrote almost four months (four months?!) ago titled “Sense in a Senseless World.” In it I questioned how an atheist or an agnostic could handle the ideas of suffering and death without God to make sense of it.

By the way, after writing that post, in the comments I acknowledge that I probably focused too much on fear (specifically, fear of death). Ubiquitous Che countered my assumption of fear of death by essentially stating (more eloquently) “When I’m dead, I won’t know it,” or something thereabout, and while I don’t completely believe that philosophy will hold as death draws closer, I can understand how it can at least intellectually justify a lack of fear of death.

Dr. Craig talks about several different facets of the human predicament, but one thing he asserts is that man can find no purpose, value, or meaning in life, and he cannot make any claims to objective moral truth, without God. If he tries, he will end up making irrational and arbitrary claims of moral truth.

For example, while preparing to write this, I stumbled across a post on Che’s blog, rhetoric sans pareil. In it, Che reprints a comment he wrote on an article on Secular Philosophy. As I understand it, part of the post argues that objective morals truths can be claimed while holding a naturalistic worldview:

I’m convinced that there IS a moral truth about the world, and we CAN discover it through evidence-based reasoning. Morality and ethics are more like trigonometry than legislation.

Consider this: Practicing genuine compassion will lead to an increase in personal happiness. That increase will be proportional to the intensity of the practice. Hence, our personal quest for happiness provides a solid rationale for self-transcendence. It’s not a question of opinion. It’s an empirically testable statement about how morality and ethics function, and as such evidence-based reasoning DOES have something to say on the subject.

[...]

If a man should kill his daughter in cold blood because he perceives that she has committed some slight against his honor, there IS a moral and ethical truth to be discerned that is not relative to culture or perspective. That daughter had a long life ahead of her. Life itself is the very basis of compassion and happiness. Considering that life is also fragile, and we have a strong basis for regarding life as something precious. Far more precious than any perceived slight of honor could ever be. As such, the act of sacrificing a precious human life for the restoration of mere honor is in direct violation of basic moral and ethical principles.

If I read this correctly, Che argues that, for example, a man killing his daughter because she dishonored him is objectively morally wrong, because if the daughter had been permitted to live, she would have experienced happiness that she now will now not experience. This claims that the denial of potential happiness is something morally wrong, which ( at least in this passage) is arbitrary. What warrant does Che have for saying that happiness is something that should not be denied, or that the daughter’s happiness is more valuable than the man’s happiness cause by his “regained honor”?

Now, very importantly, I acknowledge that Che was not entirely trying to make a complete, airtight, philosophical argument out of this. Also, please refer to the comments on his post for a discussion he and some others had of this argument. I’m using his argument in this case as an example.

This brings me to the point of this post. As I was reading this chapter and the assertions Dr. Craig made, I became curious as to how atheists and agnostics would respond to this. I learned from my experiences with the “fear of death” discussion in my old post not to underestimate the innovation of philosophical arguments for either side, so I’d like to get some atheist and agnostic opinions while I’m still forming my thoughts on the issue. I know I have a few who have commented on this site, such as Ubiquitous Che and Mardé. I’d to pose this question to them, and to anyone else who cares to reply:

How can one hold an atheistic or agnostic view and still make rational claims of meaning and value in life, and objective moral truths?

In this particular case, I’m only concerned with naturalistic philosophies that believe in objective moral truth and meaning in life. I acknowledge that there are plenty that don’t, but for this particular discussion I only want to deal with those that do.

I look foward to your responses.

Sense in a Senseless World

On my post on Approaching Atheists, Ubiquitous Che commented how my post could be reread in Steve Irwin’s voice, like the Crocodile Hunter was explaining how to approach a dangerous animal. What’s funny is this exact same thought occurred to me as I was writing it.

I went over and visited his blog (Che’s, not Steve Irwin’s), rhetoric sans pareil, where I can across a recent post of his. In it, he talks about the Brights movement.

I’ve heard about the Brights movement before, but only as a typical reactionary “They’re trying to make theists sound dim!” What it actually is, if I understand it right, is a simple attempt to promote understanding of the naturalistic worldview. In his post, Che says he will now more promote the positive points of naturalism, which he calls “beautiful and fulfilling,” instead of attacking differing worldviews.

(By the way, the Brights movement says the opposite of “Bright” isn’t “Dim”; it’s “Super,” because Supers believe in the supernatural. While it still sounds like they’re labeling atheism as something for smart people, anything that makes me feel closer to flying around and shooting lasers out of my eyes earns a point in my book.)

Ironically, this sounds suspiciously like a main way of evangelizing Christianity, summarized in a quote from Madeleine L’Engle (that was used in the Approaching Atheists series):

We do not draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it.

My reaction to this? I actually view this as good news. Many of the atheists I’ve come in contact with have been completely focused on attacking theism- even to the point of simply mocking it while making no attempt to understand it. It’s nice to see them acknowledging that they won’t win people by simply attacking their worldview alone.

Moreover, I can understand how someone could be content, or even happy with a naturalistic worldview. Were it not for my belief that Christianity is the most rationally justified worldview, I might even be a Bright myself. Except for one thing…

It might be easy to be a Bright when life is good. When the sun is shining and everything is going right, the idea that God might not really exist is trivial- you are happy without God, so why do you need Him? He is only irrelevant clutter, and your worldview is better of without Him.

However, life is not always good. This is a fallen world, and bad, senseless things do happen. Things happen in life that make us question our sanity and whether we have any shred of meaning in the cruel, cold universe.

Times will come when you will wonder if, as Shakespeare wrote, it is “nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die: to sleep.” But then you will come to the concept of death, and no matter how you rebrand it, as “peace” or “rest,” you will still have to come to the acknowledgment that, under the naturalistic worldview, death means an ending of your person- you will cease to exist.

Not only that, but this ending, this quick disintegration into nothingness, could happen anytime. It could come very suddenly- you could die tomorrow, or even today, or in fifty or sixty years. But one thing is for sure: death is certain; you will die.

And when life turns dark, and when death stares you right in the face, advancing on you or someone you love, there will be no order, no sense, no meaning. No comfort will be gleaned from the heavens, for even the stars themselves must die. The entire cold universe will eventually fade and end, and everything you did while on this tiny blue spec, all the pain you suffered, will be meaningless.

So if you are happy being a Bright, that’s fine, stay that way. I hesitate to say this, because it’s not really true; the message of the gospel is a message of urgency, for we do not know when we will die. However, I acknowledge that you may not be ready to accept the gospel yet. My job is to plant or water the seed. Only God can make it grow.

But please understand this:

You may not think you need God now. That is fine. But there will come a time when you will need Him. For your sake, please do not turn away from Him then. He’s not your enemy, someone you have to fight to the end. He’s your father, and He wants to comfort you. When the dark times come in your life, remember Him.

Many have turned to atheism when they look at the suffering and say “There is no God.” I believe many more look and say “God is our only hope.” Atheists often accuse theists of clinging to God because they are scared. Perhaps we just understand the implications better.

Approaching Atheists

Jason at The Cynical Christian is running a series, with Jennifer F. of “Et tu?” – the diary of a former atheist called “Approaching Atheists.” In it they discuss how Christians should interact with atheists. You can browse the whole series by checking out the posts labeled “approaching atheists”. I particularly thought the most recent two posts (as of now) were beneficial to read: the Top 9 Don’ts and Dos for Talking With Atheists.

Definitely check out the series. This is a very important issue for modern Christians in this society, as atheism is on the rise. We need to know how to talk with atheists, how to understand their position, and ultimately how to win some of them over.

Sadly, I think many times in interactions between Christians and atheists, the Christians end up doing more harm than good. Three don’ts for talking with atheists particularly jumped out at me as things I see a lot and that cause major problems: “Quote the Bible,” “Use a lot of Christian catchphrases,” and “Devalue the importance of science and logic.”

Often when talking with atheists, people quote the Bible. Although this is generally done with good intentions, and there is definitely a time and place to use the Bible, at least understand that an atheist does not believe in the Bible. As the article on Don’ts points out, quoting the Bible to an atheist would cause the atheist to feel like you would if your doctor used a Harry Potter book as his source of medical information.

Additionally, quoting the Bible without any sort of justification other than “it must be true because the Bible says it” to an atheist will only reaffirm his or her probable belief that all Christians are merely mindless sheep devoid of logic who couldn’t spot a circular argument if it bit them on the nose. Christians don’t need to be illogical to truly believe in their faith. We know that. We need to show the atheists that.

The next don’t I mentioned was the use of a lot of Christian catchphrases. If, right off the bat without much of an explanation, we tell an atheist to “Open your heart to Jesus, who died on the cross for you, and be washed in the waters of baptism, for the forgiveness of your sins that are covered with the blood of Chist and so that you may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who will dwell in you,” chances are he or she will shut down right away. Although we know what these phrases mean, someone unversed in Christian theology will only hear religious mumbo-jumbo that will probably reinforce the belief that theists are illogical.

Finally, and importantly, many times Christians devalue the importance of science and logic while they talk with atheists. As the series points out, to many atheists, science and logic are the pinnacles of existence, as they are “what separates us from animals.” Science and logic have their uses, and to simply deny them will cause the atheist to close you out very fast. This isn’t to say that there is a place for pure faith, but it’s hard to convert someone on “blind faith” (although this isn’t to say that it can’t be done).

Also, keep in mind that science and logic are works of God. To refuse to give them the respect they deserve would be to dishonor a facet of God’s great creation.

One other thing to note is that, although atheism is increasing in our society, outright atheism is still in the minority. Far more common, however, are nonreligious people who act very much as if they don’t believe in God, and probably rarely think on the issue. For the most part, we should use these guidelines for talking with these people too, at least until we get to know them better.

In an increasingly secular society, it is very important we know how to interact with atheists, so we may sow good seeds among the still-white fields.