From the Atheists view; can life have meaning ?

[tempogain]

Hi, somehow my quotes got attributed to Mock Turtle. Just pointing that out.

The whole argument is from the perspective of ultimate significance. To Craig, if something doesn't have it, it'll be absurd in the objective sense that it ultimately didn't make any difference. He doesn't really think significance relative to other people/events amounts to much if none of that will have ever-lasting consequence. (Humanity will end the same way regardless of whether you live like a saint or like Hitler.) To him, absurd existence just is one that lacks ultimate significance.

I would just call it "one that lacks ultimate significance" then--I'm not seeing the point of drawing this distinction.

I understand other people will have different criteria of absurdity which is why I said in my first post here, the argument at hand ultimately depends on one's personal tastes. Some people will be fine with lack of ultimate significance, others will find the argument persuasive.

I don't see why "absurdity" is involved at all. Well, I guess that's my criteria.

As I said in a previous post, if there is a God, a person will attain immortality and will be fulfilled given how God is the greatest good one can enjoy.

Are you sure about that? It sounds like another layer of belief. I'll try to find that post and see if it's explained further.

EDIT: Here? From the Atheists view; can life have meaning ? That doesn't seem to help. I guess this is another logic-based argument of some type?

Further more, if there is a God, how we live our lives and whether we exist or not does matter in the grand scheme of things since the outcome will be different depending on our actions (things won't end in eternal darkness and emptiness regardless of whether we existed or not) as we will be playing our parts in God's plan for the world. On theism then, all the conditions for 'ultimate significance' seem to be fulfilled.

I don't see how this grants an "ultimate significance" to anything. It may well be significant from your perspective.

Craig is a proponent of anselmian perfect being theology. To him, to be God just is to be a perfect being (that would include significance) and if any being were to lack significance, then that being simply wouldn't be God. He's not really concerned with explaining this here though since the argument we're talking about here is focused on the human predicament and doesn't really concern itself with God's own state.

To me, that's simply defining a significant God into existence. Craig seems to do this kind of thing a lot.

Much like the one above, this simply isn't an issue relevant to the argument at hand. Craig is the first to say that the argument in question has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. It's just analyzing the implications of atheism and theism if they were true.

I think it is relevant as part of the entire picture. There's no point at which there is a firm underpinning for Craig's assertions. I'm trying to find one. All it seems to me that he's said is that if there is no God who can imbue ultimate significance to us then we won't have ultimate significance. If that's all there is, then he wins the prize and the conversation is over. From my viewpoint, I would like to understand what level of truth is present at any point of this assertion up to and including God's suggested existence.

I'm pretty sure that, if you're at all familiar with Craig, you know he provides a whole set of arguments which aim to prove the existence of God.

Sure I do, and they are rather similar in their character to this argument in my experience. I'm most familiar with his form of the Kalam. That being said, are you saying here that God's existence has been proven through his arguments? And that God's existence is not a matter of belief?

I don't think Craig has ever denied you the right to make your own meaning to life. He concedes this relative significance, but simply doesn't think it amounts to much.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest he had. I was just clarifying that the idea of "ultimate significance" isn't necessary from my viewpoint, since I had alluded to the fact that I could believe in it if I chose.

Hope my post was helpful!

I don't know. I certainly thank you for responding and welcome the opportunity to converse about the question, but it seems to be about the kind of stuff I'm used to hearing about Craig's arguments. Maybe they're more compelling to others.

By the way anybody, is there a way to easily insert "quote" codes here? Constantly typing them is a bit annoying. Thanks for any help.

 

[Jesster]

Why does everyone have to focus on the end of life so much? I find my meaning now because that's where I am. There doesn't have to be some universal meaning of life, either. Just find your own meaning and enjoy it while you have it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hi, somehow my quotes got attributed to Mock Turtle. Just pointing that out.

No, I did say that particular bit.

 

[tempogain]

No, I did say that particular bit.

I meant in this post:

From the Atheists view; can life have meaning ?

I'm pretty sure at first my quotes there were shown as being from Mock Turtle, but are being correctly shown as belonging to me now. But I could be mistaken.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks. I know I'd personally go crazy if I believed humanity had no value, but I suspect that somebody who has a different opinion of Nietzsche might also want to weigh in on this.

I find that life has no inherent value.
But then, it has more than Nietzshe's musings upon it..
Life is quite enjoyable.
I don't need philosophy to know this.

 

[Apologes]

Hi, somehow my quotes got attributed to Mock Turtle. Just pointing that out.

Yeah, I noticed that and fixed it.

I would just call it "one that lacks ultimate significance" then--I'm not seeing the point of drawing this distinction.

I don't see why "absurdity" is involved at all. Well, I guess that's my criteria.

As I said, personal tastes. That's why I don't find this argument particularly compelling.

Are you sure about that? It sounds like another layer of belief. I'll try to find that post and see if it's explained further.

This is the post:

As I said, you ought to double check what is actually being said. Craig isn't saying we don't have significance relative to others, but that we don't have ultimate significance.

To you your lifespan may seem long and perfectly sufficient, but in the timescale of the universe it's completely irrelevant. It's not just eternity that makes for 'ultimate significance, it's also fullness of said eternal life and the difference it makes in the grand scheme of things.

If there is a God, a person will attain immortality and will be fulfilled given how God is the greatest good one can enjoy. Further more, if there is a God, how we live our lives and whether we exist or not does matter in the grand scheme of things since the outcome will be different depending on our actions (things won't end in eternal darkness and emptiness regardless of whether we existed or not) as we will be playing our parts in God's plan for the world. On theism then, all the conditions for 'ultimate significance' seem to be fulfilled.

I don't see how this grants an "ultimate significance" to anything. It may well be significant from your perspective.

What do you think is lacking in that picture to account for ultimate significance? I feel like we're not on the same page with regards to what makes something ultimately significant.

To me, that's simply defining a significant God into existence. Craig seems to do this kind of thing a lot.

It's not defining anything into existence. It's just what Craig thinks the word "God" means (at least in the context of classical theism).

I think it is relevant as part of the entire picture. There's no point at which there is a firm underpinning for Craig's assertions. I'm trying to find one. All it seems to me that he's said is that if there is no God who can imbue ultimate significance to us then we won't have ultimate significance. If that's all there is, then he wins the prize and the conversation is over. From my viewpoint, I would like to understand what level of truth is present at any point of this assertion up to and including God's suggested existence.

I think you misunderstand the point of the argument that Craig is laying out here. Craig is merely explaining the difference that God's existence makes for human existence both when it comes to their own objective worth and their destiny. It's an argument used to dismiss the attitude of "well it doesn't matter if God exists or not, everything would still be the same". What has been mentioned in the OP and discussed by people in this thread so far was just one part of his case on this issue as he also goes on to talk about moral values and the practical impossibility of atheism (which is where I think the argument kind of falls apart) so you may wish to check Craig's entire presentation to clear things up.

As for what has been said so far, my understanding is that the bold is what Craig is saying and I find that rather uncontroversial since most atheist philosophers I've seen tend to agree (but they just don't seem bothered by that). In his book On Guard, this argument serves as an opening chapter that just serves to make people more interested in the question whether there is a God or not.

Again, it's just drawing out the implications of both theism and atheism.

(Perhaps it would be useful to note that theism and atheism here are used in very specific context of classical theism and metaphysical naturalism which tends to describe most theists and atheists who Craig is affiliated with but is not the only way to take the terms. This sort of narrow perspective is one of the reasons why I don't like this argument.)

Sure I do, and they are rather similar in their character to this argument in my experience. I'm most familiar with his form of the Kalam.

I beg to differ. The arguments from Natural Theology are very different from this one both in their conclusions and starting points.

That being said, are you saying here that God's existence has been proven through his arguments? And that God's existence is not a matter of belief?

I don't think those arguments prove anything conclusively. I do think they establish the rationality of theism as they are more likely than not and so I find theism more plausible than atheism.

I don't know. I certainly thank you for responding and welcome the opportunity to converse about the question, but it seems to be about the kind of stuff I'm used to hearing about Craig's arguments. Maybe they're more compelling to others.

Craig's arguments are very widely discussed in the philosophical circles which goes to show there are a lot of people who find them compelling, but there are also a lot of people who find them flawed. You'd really have to dig through a lot of material and just form your own opinion. I myself am nowhere near close to finishing my research (I've read a lot but there's still a lot left to digest!), but I'd be happy to help with what I can. After all, I'm here to learn and share what I've learned.

By the way anybody, is there a way to easily insert "quote" codes here? Constantly typing them is a bit annoying. Thanks for any help.

Not sure, I just copy-paste them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I meant in this post:

From the Atheists view; can life have meaning ?

I'm pretty sure at first my quotes there were shown as being from Mock Turtle, but are being correctly shown as belonging to me now. But I could be mistaken.

OK.

 

[Katzpur]

I find that life has no inherent value.
But then, it has more than Nietzshe's musings upon it..
Life is quite enjoyable.
I don't need philosophy to know this.

It's enjoyable, and then it all comes to a screeching halt and even the memories of it no longer exist? And it really doesn't bother you that at some point you will simply cease to exist?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's enjoyable, and then it all comes to a screeching halt and even the memories of it no longer exist? And it really doesn't bother you that at some point you will simply cease to exist?

It only bothers me if I think about it too much.
But even more discomforting is heat death of the universe.
Ugh.
So I steer my brain towards more positive things.

 

[Katzpur]

It only bothers me if I think about it too much.
So I steer my brain towards more positive things.

And thus, the existence of bacon.

 

[Flame]

And it really doesn't bother you that at some point you will simply cease to exist?

In the immortal words of the King of Country.

I ain't here for a long time, I'm here for a good time.

 

[Katzpur]

In the immortal words of the King of Country.

I ain't here for a long time, I'm here for a good time.

I'm genuinely glad you atheists can see life that way. I wouldn't be able to. Now I believed in God a long time before I ever had a sense of my own mortality, and if I die and there's nothing else, so be it. And I won't even have to deal with it when the time comes. I just couldn't live a full life with the idea that I could, at any moment, simply cease to exist.

 

[tempogain]

What do you think is lacking in that picture to account for ultimate significance? I feel like we're not on the same page with regards to what makes something ultimately significant.

I think that's safe to say. I have no idea why that description would lead to a label of "ultimately significant". I might say "what some people perceive as significant, if we could assume several hypothetical factors to be true". Is it possible to give a clear definition of "ultimate significance"?

I took issue before with this: "If there is a God, a person will attain immortality and will be fulfilled given how God is the greatest good one can enjoy." I still don't understand it.

It's not defining anything into existence. It's just what Craig thinks the word "God" means (at least in the context of classical theism).

Then why should anyone care about it? Why should it have any status as part of this assemblage of a logical argument which is supposed to reflect that something called "ultimate significance" even exists? I really think the phrase "defining it into existence" is fair. It's not just that he thinks it means something. He takes these thoughts and then applies them in these arguments as if they have some weight.

I think you misunderstand the point of the argument that Craig is laying out here. Craig is merely explaining the difference that God's existence makes for human existence both when it comes to their own objective worth and their destiny. It's an argument used to dismiss the attitude of "well it doesn't matter if God exists or not, everything would still be the same". What has been mentioned in the OP and discussed by people in this thread so far was just one part of his case on this issue as he also goes on to talk about moral values and the practical impossibility of atheism (which is where I think the argument kind of falls apart) so you may wish to check Craig's entire presentation to clear things up.

Well, I knew there must be more than was in the OP. I will try to take a look.

As for what has been said so far, my understanding is that the bold is what Craig is saying and I find that rather uncontroversial since most atheist philosophers I've seen tend to agree (but they just don't seem bothered by that). In his book On Guard, this argument serves as an opening chapter that just serves to make people more interested in the question whether there is a God or not.

I don't see how it could be controversial, but I don't see how any point of it has been adequately defined or supported either. I would call it a truism with nothing on the bone.

I beg to differ. The arguments from Natural Theology are very different from this one both in their conclusions and starting points.

In the arguments I'm familiar with (this now being one) there are some common points to his approach, as I've been critiquing above.

I don't think those arguments prove anything conclusively. I do think they establish the rationality of theism as they are more likely than not and so I find theism more plausible than atheism.

Again, I have similar objections to the ones I have some familiarity with. There are lots of reasons to possibly believe in God, and ultimately none of them are convincing to me or I would believe. But Craig's type of argumentation has always rung particularly hollow to me. He's obviously said a lot more than what I've heard though. I'm only going on the couple of arguments I'm familiar with.

Craig's arguments are very widely discussed in the philosophical circles which goes to show there are a lot of people who find them compelling, but there are also a lot of people who find them flawed. You'd really have to dig through a lot of material and just form your own opinion. I myself am nowhere near close to finishing my research (I've read a lot but there's still a lot left to digest!), but I'd be happy to help with what I can. After all, I'm here to learn and share what I've learned.

That's cool. I'm happy to discuss them to the extent of my ability. I'm sure there's a lot I could learn.

 

[icehorse]

A guilty pleasure of mine is reading William Lane Craig. I consider myself a Christian so how can his work be a guilty pleasure for me someone might ask. His work is absolutely commendable in the field of Christian apologetics but I do not see the teachings of Christ needing human reason to back its gifts over a faithful and unreasonable human heart. Once again, his arguments are an absolute delight but human logic and reason can only take you so far on your spiritual journey with God.

I believe those quotes lead to what Kierkegaard spoke of when he mentions the absurd in "The Sickness unto Death". This is a complex idea to grasp for nonbelievers but faith through love and Christ eliminates this absurdity and also empowers the individual with a true mission to carry out every single moment of his life. I have an impression that people don't quite understand the relentlessness of spirit that people seeking to be Christian carry. It is not something you can see with your eyes so perhaps that is a drawback for people needing proofs and evidence but to be honest it means little to the holder of that relentlessness. The blessing is everything and I am glad it can not be explained with mere words like some auto mechanic's manual.

With respect, how do you know that the only way to achieve such "spirit" is to embrace the teachings of Christ? From what I know, what one has to do is cherry-pick the teachings of Christ so that they match our best thinking on ethics, morality and meaning.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is just your own projection. Craig is aligning himself with the reasoning of existential philosophers that came long before him (plenty of whom were atheists) and is presenting a philosophical argument for that which he claims to believe. The fact that you think this is some kind of trick that Craig uses to degrade others is just another example of what I previously pointed out, you have no idea what Craig is actually arguing for and are uncharitably trying to paint him in charlatan colors.

Of course I know what Craig is arguing for. His argument is clear. I simply find no substance in it for reasons given, and have a pretty good idea what motivates it - a desire to make others uncomfortable or dissatisfied with daily life however smoothly it might be running. He's telling us that such a life is empty, too small, absurd, and irrelevant.

I'd call that the uncharitable position, not the one that rejects it and chastises its author. And I understand perfectly well what motivates it. He's evangelizing. His Great Commission is to go out and capture as many souls as he can by any means that he deems will succeed. Isn't that how you sell somebody a car that isn't looking for one? You begin by making him dissatisfied with his present car.

Where is your evidence that Craig is going through such a struggle? Why couldn't it be that people who think differently than you are actually sincere and satisfied with their worldview?

I told you what I see. The evidence is the evidence of his life and writings. They show me a man that really isn't comfortable in his beliefs and exerts a tremendous amount of energy justifying them.

"People like Craig" - people who don't follow your train of thought? It's telling that you devote more time making assumptions about Craig's personal life and motivations then actually addressing the argument at hand. Indeed, all you did was try to present the quest for 'ultimate significance' as a deceptive strategy which is again just an assumption about your opponent's motivations rather than a sound rebuttal.

I could elaborate further on why ultimate significance is the irrelevant concept here, not the opposing idea that meaning and purpose is found in the here and now - an idea that Craig calls absurd - but I didn't feel a need to.

My rebuttal is that we don't exist at ultimate scales, so why are they more important? Our lives are not about the fate of the universe or the end of time. Meaning won't be found redirecting your attention to such things. In fact, as I alluded, doing so is likely the reason people who are there for meaning keep searching for it endlessly.

Life isn't apparent at the scales of the very large, such as galaxies over eons, or the very small, such as electrons over fractions of nanoseconds. Meaning is found at the scale life exists.

Nor do we exist in any proposed supernatural realms, and have no reason that we ever will or that that word refers to anything at all. If such beliefs are what one thinks give life meaning, Redirecting our attention to such matters ought to make life less satisfying. How many believers seem to be living life as if this world is a burden and that they are waiting at a celestial bus stop to be carried away? How many hymns have that theme?

I consider the error and the absurd position to be looking for meaning there when it is right in front of you every day, and denigrating the value of daily life meaning for no better reason than because it's finite and played out on a part of the surface of a small planet over a few decades.

I consider such thinking as Craig's to be wrong-headed and counterproductive.

Sorry if these ideas offend you, but they are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered to the marketplace of ideas here for consideration.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

is there a way to easily insert "quote" codes here? Constantly typing them is a bit annoying. Thanks for any help.

Highlight the first part of a post that you want to cite to reply to, and "+ Quote" will appear (along with Reply). Choose Quote.

Then repeat for every snippet of text you want to respond to separately.

Then go down to the bottom of the page, choose "Insert Quotes ...", and you won't have to bother with tags at all, or the Reply button, although you will have to select "Post Reply" when done typing.

 

[Apologes]

I think that's safe to say. I have no idea why that description would lead to a label of "ultimately significant". I might say "what some people perceive as significant, if we could assume several hypothetical factors to be true". Is it possible to give a clear definition of "ultimate significance"?

From my understanding of Craig's presentation of this argument, I think the bottom criteria for significance (in the context of this thread) would be to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. For there to ultimately be a different end results depending on whether you existed or not when all is said and done. On atheism, things will end all the same. Sure, the path to the end will be different, but since our lives amount to but a moment in the grand scheme the end will be the same. Eternal darkness and void.

On theism, as I said, what we do does matter in the grand scheme for the universe will not just collapse and erase all that we've ever done. Instead, our actions have been very important in the divine plan (it doesn't really get any more grand than that) and as such have everlasting consequences. Given how the thread has been rather limited in it's context this isn't exactly how Craig argument goes (more on it below) but it does capture it in broad strokes.

I took issue before with this: "If there is a God, a person will attain immortality and will be fulfilled given how God is the greatest good one can enjoy." I still don't understand it.

What is your objection, then?

Then why should anyone care about it? Why should it have any status as part of this assemblage of a logical argument which is supposed to reflect that something called "ultimate significance" even exists? I really think the phrase "defining it into existence" is fair. It's not just that he thinks it means something. He takes these thoughts and then applies them in these arguments as if they have some weight.

I don't think I follow. Why should anyone care about what, the perfect being theology? I'm not sure what you're asking, it is just one way the theist can understand the concept of God. To define something into existence would be to try to prove that something exists by adding the predicate of existing to the definition. If, for example, Craig said something like "God is a being which exists" then that would obviously be not only non-informative but an actual example of defining things into existence.

The APBT doesn't do this (it used to back when st.Anselm used it in his ontological argument, but it's not used in such a way here) since all Craig says (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that God is the greatest conceivable being which he takes to mean the being that has all great-making attributes. I'm pretty sure Craig is well aware that existence isn't an attribute, but a predicate so I don't think he defines God as existing (hence why he doesn't do that even in his defense of the Modal Ontological Argument, instead relying on the S5 axiom of modal logic to get him there, make of that what you will).

Well, I knew there must be more than was in the OP. I will try to take a look.

You can find his presentation of the argument on a couple of places. Craig is one of the few philosophers who were charitable enough to offer most of his popular and scholarly writings for free on his website so you can find the paper here.

I don't see how it could be controversial, but I don't see how any point of it has been adequately defined or supported either. I would call it a truism with nothing on the bone.

Well, you'd be surprised by how often people either misunderstand or just dismiss this.

In the arguments I'm familiar with (this now being one) there are some common points to his approach, as I've been critiquing above.

I don't think there is a common approach between this argument and the arguments of Natural Theology which are far more developed and better thought out.

Tip: When quoting someone, don't just add "QUOTE" in the brackets. When you click reply to a post, the post will appear in the editor. Make sure you don't delete the first quotation mark as it includes the name of the member and the ID of the post as they won't receive a notification if you do that.

 

[sealchan]

Life has meaning. Why does religion have to define life?

Life is for the living to define. it not some abstract concept or thought.

And what are the various religions but different ways in which man has tried to identify the meaning if life?

 

[sealchan]

I suppose that if a person believes that a divine parent is required to give their life significance then that person is personifying the idea that significance comes from a sense of shared value and mutual respect.

Most of us lead unpublic lives in our little circles of family and acquaintances. We see the famoys followed and worshipped. We see the famous deceased adored. We imagine that somehow we will appreciate this once we are dead. What difference is their if we are not conscious?

I often think that a belief in immortality causes as many problems as it purports to solve. The fear of death overcome is the pathway to a life worth living.

 

[tempogain]

From my understanding of Craig's presentation of this argument, I think the bottom criteria for significance (in the context of this thread) would be to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. For there to ultimately be a different end results depending on whether you existed or not when all is said and done. On atheism, things will end all the same. Sure, the path to the end will be different, but since our lives amount to but a moment in the grand scheme the end will be the same. Eternal darkness and void.

Sure.

On theism, as I said, what we do does matter in the grand scheme for the universe will not just collapse and erase all that we've ever done. Instead, our actions have been very important in the divine plan (it doesn't really get any more grand than that) and as such have everlasting consequences. Given how the thread has been rather limited in it's context this isn't exactly how Craig argument goes (more on it below) but it does capture it in broad strokes.

OK. Maybe I've been getting hung up on the word "ultimate" and thinking of something like "absolute". I can see how there is some significance to our actions in the way you say above.

What is your objection, then?

I simply don't understand what it means.

I don't think I follow. Why should anyone care about what, the perfect being theology? I'm not sure what you're asking, it is just one way the theist can understand the concept of God. To define something into existence would be to try to prove that something exists by adding the predicate of existing to the definition. If, for example, Craig said something like "God is a being which exists" then that would obviously be not only non-informative but an actual example of defining things into existence.

Care about what his thoughts about what God is are. He thinks God must have significance. Fine. My objection is to how these ideas are then introduced into logical arguments such as this one as if they carry some weight, and even can't be rationally questioned. If you start with an assumption that God has significance, that takes you somewhere very different than if you don't assume that. It's not an insignificant supposition in the context of this argument. And the argument is claimed to carry some logical weight.

The APBT doesn't do this (it used to back when st.Anselm used it in his ontological argument, but it's not used in such a way here) since all Craig says (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that God is the greatest conceivable being which he takes to mean the being that has all great-making attributes. I'm pretty sure Craig is well aware that existence isn't an attribute, but a predicate so I don't think he defines God as existing (hence why he doesn't do that even in his defense of the Modal Ontological Argument, instead relying on the S5 axiom of modal logic to get him there, make of that what you will).

People have told me similar things about the Kalam, that there's no point in questioning whether God is eternal or what have you. But these assumptions, which ultimately rest on bare definitions, have meaning in the context of these arguments.

You can find his presentation of the argument on a couple of places. Craig is one of the few philosophers who were charitable enough to offer most of his popular and scholarly writings for free on his website so you can find the paper here.

Thank you, I will certainly read that. Looking at the title and summary, I am confident that I will find something to object to after a short hiatus here Have a good one.

EDIT: I'm not sure I can slog through this. I know where it's going. Case in point. The whole thing is going to rest on the assumption that God himself has significance. Which is just what Craig thinks, right?