I touched on this in another thread when CJHOWORTH said, “FAITH GIVES ME HOPE AND COMFORT”. I’d like to hear from theists of all faiths: if it was proven indisputably (to YOUR satisfaction) that there was no god, would you consider your life pointless? Liveable but empty? Could the void be filled by earthly relationships? Would you turn to meditation or other techniques to attempt to find the hope and comfort that has been removed from your life? I’m interested in knowing if your purpose in life will be altered should it turn out that there is no god.
My question is: What void? Your life already has fulfilling relationships, I’m sure. Your life is already fulfilling. Perhaps you’ve come accustomed to crediting god for it, but I find it hard to believe that your belief in god is really what does any of that. It’s just where you happen to put the credit.
“Hope and comfort” are emotions, convictions. They don’t need to “come” from anywhere other than your own heart, or the hearts of others.
My question is: What void? Your life already has fulfilling relationships, I’m sure. Your life is already fulfilling. Perhaps you’ve come accustomed to crediting god for it, but I find it hard to believe that your belief in god is really what does any of that. It’s just where you happen to put the credit.
“Hope and comfort” are emotions, convictions. They don’t need to “come” from anywhere other than your own heart, or the hearts of others.
Somewhere in the zone between “liveable but empty” and “kill me now”, I’d say, based on the experience of having seriously entertained the possibility of no god. NOTE: It could mean something different to me than to other theistic folks. To me if feelings and notions about what is good and how things ought to be, etc., have validity (meaning, purpose, choose your synonym) aside from being byproducts of other mechanical causes, then there is god and we are simply discussing whether god is “like this” or god is “like that”.
I am not a thiest, so I cannot say that I derive these things from a god. But obviously, some people here DO feel that these good feelings are directly attributable to god (CJHOWORTH, for one). I believe Polycarp has said something to that effect…that the presence of god in his life has opened doors that he would not normally have delved in “BC”. The question, although it is open to debate, was directed more toward those that believe.
Mods, I accidentally posted two of these…the response time was VERY SLOW. Please delete the empty one if you can. Thanks.
Well my whole life changed quite radically when I converted, but maybe something else would have changed me in some way or other (the same could be said of marriage (which came later) for me; it completely changed my life and character in a very positive way). There’s no way to tell, of course, but my feeling is that the downward spiral that I was on before coming to faith would not have ended nicely without some sort of serious intervention.
I could tolerate living an empty life, as long as there was a lot of sex involved.
I ask the question because some of the believers on these boards asked, in essence, “…what would be the purpose of leading a moral life if you weren’t going to go to heaven?” These are people who (I assume) are involved in church activities or charitable organizations connected to the church. Would they continue along these lines through secular organizations? Or would you more or less give up and just “get through” life without any real commitment to your fellow man?
Oh, and Bryan…god or not, there will always be sex involved. Mother Nature’s gotchya covered!
Well, for me heaven is this life (so is hell). If I were to lose my faith that my feelings about what constitutes the righteous way to treat other humans were somehow connected to something intrinsically right (rather than accidental byproducts of my personal history, culture, random processes, whatever), that would be tantamount to being convinced that it does not matter how I treat other people, as neither my feelings about it nor theirs would be more than meaningless artifacts.
How about backing up a little?
What are the functions of religion?
I’ll offer four:
-1) To provide explanatory power.
-2) To provide a values basis which justify rules of behavior/lifestyle.
-3) To provide for individual spiritual needs.
-4) To provide for group identity.
Now remove religion and lets look at what void is left.
Well, science does a pretty good job of the first.
And much of the world accepts secular values independent of their religious faith, based on the axioms of “all men are created equal” and of human rights. Many are able to accept that certain behaviors are proper independent of eternal damnation or reward. Secular values have provided a more or less common ground across religions and societal groups.
Spiritual needs? A void is left for many. Religion fills this need for many quite well. Any many identify that sensation of spirituality as God experienced. Some philosophies (eg Buddaism) fill that need without a God concept, however.
And group identity. We are apparently a species that needs its “granfalloons” … we have no shortage of other ways to subdivide ourselves and I am sure we could come up with many more. Sure, killing each other over being Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, or Sikh, has been fun, but there would be no void in that regard.
Values, again, aren’t something I necessarily think need to be “provided.” I value many things, and I’m not sure what more I can really say about my values other than that they are part of my character, pretty much inseprable.
- is interesting, because I don’t think it’s very clear what “spiritual needs” means. This is a concept that I find it very hard to get anyone to define. Any deeply felt emotional connection to things seems to fulfill it, regardless of whether it is labeled “god” or not (how can one even really distinguish if that label is appropriate or not, or whether it is simply one reading their particular interpretation into the feelings?)
My opinion is that without God there would be no void needing to be filled.
Regarding morality, I agree with AHunter3 in that if there is no objective, intrinsic, absolute wrong and right, then nothing matters. It has nothing to do with getting into heaven, but pleasing the God I serve. I believe that as the “programmer,” so to speak, of the universe, He set the rules to be followed (think Everquest). These are what we perceive as “right” and “wrong”. Without God, there is no basis for objective morality, and whatever pleases you (after weighing consequences) at any given moment is what is “right”.
I am also unclear on what “individual spiritual needs” are. My spiritual needs are for fellowship with my creator, and lacking a creator, I can’t see needing any such thing.
And finally, how would my purpose in life change if I were to be convinced that there is no God? Completely. My life would be without purpose, other than to go through the motions of living and trying to make myself happy and avoid pain. It’s like fighting a duel, knowing that regardless of who wins, both parties will be killed. Pointless and mechanical.
—Regarding morality, I agree with AHunter3 in that if there is no objective, intrinsic, absolute wrong and right, then nothing matters.—
That doesn’t follow. It might be true in that case that nothing matters universally, but there’s no reason why things couldn’t still matter to you very much. Regardless of whether there is a god or not, I still very much value my life and the lives of those around me. This isn’t based on anything other than me being a being who values these things.
Personally, I do believe that certain things are right and other things wrong, universally, regardless of whether there is a god or not. Killing my friend for kicks would be wrong no matter what deity or lack of deity existed: even a deity that told me that it was a good thing to do.
—I believe that as the “programmer,” so to speak, of the universe, He set the rules to be followed (think Everquest).—
If the rules can be set, then how are they “objective” or “absolute?” They seem contingent and arbitrary (in the sense that it wouldn’t matter WHAT they were: they could have been anything, and your arguement wouldn’t change any).
I’ve never understood the “no morality without god” bit. Even if it were true that “objective morality” were just “whatever god wants” (which doesn’t make any sense to begin with, see above), one would STILL have to value doing what god wants in the first place! That is, no matter whether there is a god or not, if you don’t find some PRE-god reason to morally value doing what god wants (being good), you still aren’t going to have any moral interests in doing it (though perhaps purely self-interested ones, if you happen to believe in an angry god)!
That is, by even admitting that you morally value god’s will, you demonstrate that you are not, in fact, the provisional nihilist you make yourself out to be, even without a god around. If you can morally value god’s will, then you can morally value other things as well, and so find plenty of purpose in your life and many other things.
—And finally, how would my purpose in life change if I were to be convinced that there is no God? Completely. My life would be without purpose, other than to go through the motions of living and trying to make myself happy and avoid pain.—
I think you are confusing two senses of the word purpose. If there is a god, then this god may well have a purpose FOR you. But that would not necessarily make life meaningful to anyone: it would not automatically give somoene’s life “purpose” from their perspective, anymore than a chess piece might find its existence purposeful, despite it playing a role in a game for the purposes of another.
Life is only meaningful TO a person themselves if that person feels they have a purpose themselves: i.e. finds meaning in doing something. In your case, your purpose IS serving what you see as god’s purpose FOR you. You find meaning in that. But you could well have other purposes for yourself, irregardless of whether god exists or not. That you find serving god’s purposes meaningful does not preclude you from finding other things meaningful as well. And regardless of whether there is a god with a purpose for you or not, it is YOU that still has to find meaning in it.
The problem is that as long as you would have these feelings, just thinking that they’re meaningless artifacts would be unlikely to change your behavior. IMO, feelings are much more powerful than intellectual rationalizations. You could very well think there’s no objective reason not to kill your neighbor (assuming you can avoid being jailed), but as long as you feel guilt, you most probably won’t do so.
Possibly you could try to reeducate yourself in order not to feel any guilt, but it would be a time-consuming and probably painful process. I doubt there are many people training themselves in misbehaving…
It doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. If you not only think, but feel that life has no purpose, why would it be any different for eternal life? What’s the purpose of living forever, exactly?
This issue has bugged me for quite a long time. Why are some people thinking that their life has suddenly more purpose if it is extended, exactly? If living 75 years is meaningless, so is living 500 years, or 1 000 000 000 years, or forever…
Apos, well-friggin’-told. That is pretty much the way I feel. I believe that we have learned our value systems from our families and society, and we can act according to those values with or without a god. Clairobscur, I agree with you also. If there is no meaning to a natural human lifespan, there would equally be no meaning in eternal life. In fact, it would probably be less meaningful than life on Earth, because you would have already grabbed the brass ring, and there would be nothing left to strive toward. You’d just be laying around on a cloud listening to harp music and eating grapes. The sense of purpose, by definition, would be gone.
I agree with that statement. But you’re missing my point. The point isn’t to get more life. If that was it, then you’re right: it wouldn’t matter. The point is that the “more life” is spent with the creator, who loves me and whom I love. The point is fellowship with the God I serve.
Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
Regarding the idea that you already have these feelings about right and wrong, and they wouldn’t just go away if there were no God:
We’re not arguing in a vacuum where both positions are equally valid, with the assumption that there is a ‘void’ and ‘objective moral feelings’ that all people have (and feelings, by definition, are not objective. They are subjective. So I don’t see how feelings about morality can, in the wildest stretch, be called an objective morality). Either there is a God, or there is not. The fact that there are universally accepted concepts of right and wrong are, to me, evidence that there is, in fact, a creator, and those values were instilled in us by Him.
But in having a god in your life, aren’t you already spending quality time and cultivating a fellowship with him? And don’t you do that by living according to the bible?
Maybe my question is: What exactly do you anticipate doing in heaven? Will you be able to interact with people on earth (directly or indirectly), or interact with others in heaven? In those interactions, do you have a choice to be good or bad, or is everything automatically good?
—We’re not arguing in a vacuum where both positions are equally valid, with the assumption that there is a ‘void’ and ‘objective moral feelings’ that all people have (and feelings, by definition, are not objective. They are subjective.—
The referents of the feelings are not. The feelings themselves, however, ARE objectively real. Which is important to realize for later…
—So I don’t see how feelings about morality can, in the wildest stretch, be called an objective morality.—
Without values, there would be no reason to speak of morality in the first place. Who could you wrong if no state of the world was valued over any other by anybody? How could you do right?
—Either there is a God, or there is not. The fact that there are universally accepted concepts of right and wrong are, to me, evidence that there is, in fact, a creator, and those values were instilled in us by Him.—
Ah, but that’s the rub.
We can say for a fact that many people (including myself) believe that it is everywhere and always wrong to, say rape. That’s a fact, and it is not a fact that rests on the approval of any superbeing (indeed, the very idea of that being the case UNDERMINES the concept of objective morality). If a God appeared before me and said “Rape is a sacrement, I designed the world so that it should be so, and it was always my plan to only reveal this teaching at this point in history” that wouldn’t in the least change my opinion that rape is wrong.
And, as you say: either there is a God or there is not (for some value of “God”). But it seems that we, and you agree, already have a strong presumption of objective morality, regardless of whether one believes there is a God or not. If we didn’t, irregardless of god, then it wouldn’t be absolute or objective in the first place. And, after all, if there weren’t an objective morality indepedant of god, there would be no way to state that god was good, or that god’s will was good, in any meaningful sense. That is, it would be totally pointless to state that “it is good to follow god’s will” because the statement would become like A=A: it would cease to be a statement of moral conclusion, and would simply become one of restating a definition. But this itself drains the concept of “good” or any moral meaning: if someone didn’t feel like following god’s will, you wouldn’t be able to present a moral arguement as to why they should: the best you could do is appeal to their self-interest.
The arguement that “there are universally accepted concepts of right and wrong and this proves that a God exists” seems like one of the most fallicious of all apologist arguements to me (especially considering the long and bloody history of how that tenuous moral consensus came to be in its present state), but then, this thread is not about proving the existence of god, but rather talking about what life would be like without one.