“Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.” (1)
We have an inbuilt desire to do things that matter. But what if everything we build and love and fight for is gone someday? Without a trace. As if it never was. Would it matter that we existed for an instant in the face of an eternity without us? The inescapable answer is that it would not.
The problem is that we know, with the rarity of absolute certainty, that we will die.
Moreover, modern science tells us the universe is not about us. It tells us via evolutionary biology that we owe our existence to chance. With all the potential apocalyptic disasters looming over our heads, it is possible that we as a species will not endure forever. We know we have our own expiration date. Yet, the thought of our non-existence causes us great angst.
“Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.” This is how Paul of Tarsus, the writer of much of the New Testament, which is the second part of the Christian Bible, summed up life if death is our final curtain call.
But even hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, doesn’t work out. We can’t do what we want because of limitations that all of us (to some extent or another) face. We may lack the material resources – money, power, or physical capacity – to do what we want. Further, more often than not, our desire to do something will conflict with someone else’s desire to do something else. Someone may prevail (there is a possibility that neither person will get what they want) but it may not always be you. We also know that many aspects of our lives are beyond our control. Disease, natural disaster, war, economic collapses, and political convulsions can all radically alter the course of our lives. As we are all too painfully aware, there is little we can do to insulate ourselves from these things. So the best we can hope for is to strive to eat, drink, and be merry, as it is not within our power to achieve even this modicum of happiness.
Why do we feel this need for significance in the face of our insignificance? Is it some kind of cosmic joke? If so, I don’t hear too much laughter.
The Bible reassures us that there is a meaning to all of this. The writer of Ecclesiastes, a part of the Old Testament, the first part of the Bible, outlines the meaningless nature of life coming to the conclusion that life only has meaning because God judges everyone in the end. The Bible tells us there is a life after this – heaven and hell. After advising those who reject the resurrection of Jesus, the central element of Christianity, to “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”, Paul points out the difference for Christians is that we have a hope because the end of this life is not our end. For those who believe and obey Jesus, who defeated death, there is a hope that will never be destroyed. Paul writes: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (2)
You may choose to reject the idea of eternal life through the death and resurrection of Jesus, but if this life is all there is, any attempt to find meaning is doomed, fulfillment is fleeting, and significance illusory.
(1) 1 Corinthians 15 v.32. King James Version.
(2) 1 Corinthians 15 v. 55. Kings James Version.
“…but if this life is all there is, any attempt to find meaning is doomed, fulfillment is fleeting, and significance illusory.” I disagree. For your statement to be true, no nonbeliever in history could have found meaning/fulfillment/significance in their lives. I personally know nonbelievers who would beg to differ, so I don’t see how you can cast the shadow on all nonbelievers throughout history. People apply meaning/fulfillment/significance to their lives in their own way. Perhaps it’s raising children for one person, perhaps it’s leading a revolution for another, perhaps it’s championing human rights for another, perhaps it’s helping alleviate poverty for another. Despite how it may look from your perspective, to assume that supernatural meaning/fulfillment/significance is the only one that counts for everyone is hubris.
Frank, thanks for your comment. I should point out that it is not only
Christians who hold this view. Existentialist philosophers such as Sartre held that life in a naturalistic universe (a universe without God) would be meaningless. I agree that we do seek to find purpose in our lives, you have mentioned some of the ways above in your comment. However, if the naturalistic picture of the universe is true, we owe our existence to chance, we will die after a relatively short period of time, and eventually the entire human race will be no more. Purpose and meaning in such a world is illusory. If we exist for the blink of an eye in the face of eternity and we are a random accident, nothing that we do in our short lives has ultimate meaning. However, we still look for purpose and meaning in our lives- I find this interesting.
Ah, I think what we have here is a miscommunication. We are not defining “meaning” in the same way. In your view, something has to be eternal to be meaningful, otherwise it’s illusory because anything finite will disappear forever. In my view, meaning can extend to the current and does not always require eternity to be meaningful.
Also consider this, Einstein showed us that time is relative, and the perception of time being constant and never ending is, in fact, an illusion.
With regards to our desire for meaning being proof that there is a god, in my mind there is a perfectly logical evolutionary argument for the desire for meaning. Our desire for meaning usually takes the form of making a positive impact on the world. Sometimes this can be warped by crazies, but even if you ask them they would say that they are trying to have a positive impact on the world. We can all imagine how this desire to have a positive impact would benefit a tribe/people.
Frank, I don’t think that the fact that life is meaningless if the naturalistic worldview is true proves that God exists. Rather, it shows the logical conclusion of the naturalistic worldview. It is interesting that you mention “making a positive impact on the world”. If naturalism is correct and our moral sense is the result of evolution, how can there be objective moral standards? If these moral standards evolved, they could have been otherwise. Different creatures than us could have evolved with different moral standards at odds with ours, e.g., that murder was morally justified. Such creatures would not be bound by our moral standards. So, there is nothing objectively true about our moral standards if naturalism is true. So our sense of having a “positive impact on the world” would be an illusion. (Note that I am not saying that nonbelievers can’t be moral, rather that the naturalistic worldview cannot ground such morality.) Further, if we are the result of chance via undirected process of natural selection, and we will eventually be gone, any purpose we have is illusory. Everything that we do, the people we love, the children we give birth to and raise, our careers, our achievements, will be utterly destroyed and forgotten in the cold, indifferent universe. Why think on the basis of naturalism that humans have a special place in the universe any more than the most humble animal.
“Rather, it shows the logical conclusion of the naturalistic worldview.” Again, this is subjective and depends on your interpretation of “meaning”.
You’re right, there are no objective moral standards. To use a phrase you like, it’s “illusory”. The perception of objective morality is really just a composite of opinions and the fact that we likely evolved with a propensity to act in a certain way in certain situations. Reality and history are perfectly consistent with this view. Instead of being universal and constant, morality changes over time, sometimes drastically. Take slavery, for example, or women’s rights, or gay rights, or civil rights, etc. Obviously the consensus of moral opinions in society change over time. There’s even a dramatic difference in what is perceived as right and wrong when comparing cultures of today. You know why there’s all this contrast, now and in the past? Because it’s completely relative. I know exactly what you’re going to say: “if there is no objective morality, you have no right to judge anyone or convict anyone of wrongdoing – after all, it’s all opinion.” Yup, it is all opinion, but those in the majority get to make the laws and everyone must obey them or be punished because that is practicality.
The thought of objective morality is certainly a nice one, just like heaven is a nice thought, but that doesn’t make either of them real. And the facts lean heavily in the direction of moral relativism and evolution, unless you have a bible confirmation bias.
In addition to the facts above, there are also inherent contradictions in the Christian idea of moral objectivity. First, even if it exists, nobody knows what it is. That’s why you have so many different opinions about what is right, both today and in the past. Second, morality is relative to the situation: I suspect you think murder is objectively bad, but would it have been bad to murder Hitler before he launched WWII? Of course not, because it’s relative. Third, I would argue that, in your view, nothing can be objectively bad because when god does it it’s not bad. I don’t even need to mention the disgusting atrocities god commanded/did in the old testament, we all know what they are, and I suspect most of them would fall in what you would call “objectively immoral” – but not when god does them. Do you see the problem with that? For something to be objective/universal/constant, it needs to ALWAYS be the case, but it’s not, because it’s relative to who is committing the act. Another example of what I mean is: you think child rape is objectively immoral, but if god commands it it becomes moral because he is omnibenevolent – do you see the problem? To get around this you’re probably going to say “god is the law giver and can make the changes as he sees fit.” That’s fine, but then morality is not objective/universal/constant. What you have then is the Christian god’s relative morality – there’s a difference.
My point in the post was that if naturalism is true then life is meaningless because there could be no purpose, value or meaning. Any meaning, purpose, or value in this life would be illusory. You responded that life was meaningful because there is a purpose to life – that one can make a difference. But, now you seem to be conceding there are no objective morals moral standards, that such standards in fact are illusory. I certainly agree with you on this point. So, I’m not sure that there is much point in us continuing this dialogue.
However, the thought that morality might be relative is not a comforting thought to me, or to most other people I suspect either.
Even though we are straying off the topic of the post above, I have a few further comments on your latest reply.
First, I don’t agree that morality has changed over time. Murder has always been wrong. By murder I mean intentional killing without justification such as self-defense. Therefore, not all killing is wrong, e.g., police are authorized to use lethal force is certain situations to protect civilians and it is not murder. Moreover, your example of killing Hitler does not prove your point. Certain killings are justified under the laws of war, e.g., a killing in the course of a just war fought in accordance with the laws of war. So, the killing of Hitler would not be murder.
I also don’t think there are many differing opinions as to whether murder to right or wrong in our world today.
You really think that consensus rules when it comes to morality? So, you would have supported Jim Crow laws in the 1950s? You would be fine with a society where the majority decided that it was morally justified to murder you and force your loved ones to be slaves? If you are correct, and we are not to live in a living hell, the majority of people would have to be good. But you say there is no standard of good – so how would that work?
Finally, I think it a little odd that you think murder is not really wrong but a decision that is relative and arrived by consensus, but would criticize God’s morality. The people that God ordered the Israelites to destroy were corrupt societies that practiced child sacrifice. God also delayed their judgment for four hundred years (Gen 15: 13, 16). The Bible presents the overall narrative of God working for human salvation. In the Old Testament, God set aside the people of Israel as a vehicle to show Himself to the world, and lay out His plan of salvation for humankind – Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Cannanite tribes would have influenced the Israelites adversely and hampered God’s plan.
You give the example of God ordering child rape. A strange example because this is something that is completely abhorent to God. But, on your view child rape is not wrong. It is just not the current majority or “consensus” view, but that could change. So, if you lived in a community where child rapists were the majority, according to your view, their actions would be moral.
“You responded that life was meaningful because there is a purpose to life”. I never said we have a purpose, those are your words. Purpose is usually something that has been assigned. Obviously I don’t believe a higher power assigned us anything. I just said, some people can find what they would call meaning, despite the fact that you think meaning requires eternity.
“the thought that morality might be relative is not a comforting thought to me”. Me either. Doesn’t make it any less real.
On murder, even if murder hadn’t changed, which I think it has, all I would need is one example of a different moral that has clearly changed to prove my point. For objective morality to exist, all morals would need to be universal and constant. Obviously they are not, as some clearly change.
Listen to all the caveats you give to your murder argument. It’s bad, except in self defense, or when a police officer needs to do it, or in war according to the laws of war (who’s laws, btw, the ones we decided to create at the Geneva Convention?). It’s not so black and white, is it? It’s contextual; it’s relative to the situation. How about murdering Hitler when he’s a kid, well before WWII began, when the “laws of war” didn’t apply yet? Is that still moral?
Also, what constitutes “justification” for purposefully killing a person depends on where you are in the world and where you are in history (i.e., it’s relative). Sure, I’m sure the vast majority think unlawfully killing a person is bad, but the catch is the word “unlawful”; you don’t even have to go back in history to see differences of opinion on that.
Regarding consensus, you’re confusing consensus with opinion. If the consensus is that slavery is wrong, it does not follow that my opinion has to be the same. People are allowed to have opinions that go against the mainstream. Regarding Jim Crow, I currently disagree, but if I grew up in a different era, with different upbringing, I might have been racist, just like vast the majority of whites were for hundreds of years here – an example of morality evolving.
Are you really trying to justify genocide??? Good lord (pun intended). If so, I am speechless. On this we are so far apart that no logic applies. May god have mercy on his own soul.
Regarding the child rape example, it never ceases to amaze me how often believers, when confronted with a strong argument against the bible, will trot out the “you don’t believe in objective morality, therefore you can’t criticize god”. It’s their wild card, and they like to play it when confronted with an ace. To be clear, when I made my moral contradiction argument, I was not talking about my opinions of right and wrong, I was pointing out the contradiction in your own belief. I’d love to hear your response to it. I know it’s a tough one, and your instinct is to play the religious wild card, but I urge you to actually think about it. I’ll summarize it again: nothing can be objectively bad because when god does it it’s not bad; for something to be objective/universal/constant, it needs to ALWAYS be the case.
Just to clarify, regardless if objective morality exists, I can still have an opinion. Do you see how a subjective opinion does not require objective morality? I hope so. Also, again, my opinion does not have to be the consensus. Do you agree? You keep equating the two, not sure why. Anyway, child rape is actually a good example. Did you know that ancient Rome did not look down upon sexual relations between adults and children? You know why? Because their morality was relative to their cultural context.
Frank, it doesn’t look like we are going to agree anytime soon. You think morality is relative and I disagree. So, I just wanted to address your questions about consensus. I take consensus to mean what the majority agree on. So, if morals are based on consensus, they are based on what the majority agree on. You asked if your opinion could be different from the consensus. Of course in such a society one could dissent, but that person would not be acting morally. In fact, that dissenter would be acting immorally in violation of consensus. Also, you mention that you think that if you grew up in the south during slavery you might have endorsed that system. If morality is relative and based on consensus, there would be nothing morally wrong with endorsing slavery. In my mind you would be acting morally if you disagreed with the consensus in that society. However according to your definition, by disagreeing with the consensus you would be immoral as you feel that morality is evolving and changing. Anyway, as I mentioned at the beginning, I don’t believe either one of us will convince the other. So, it is likely best that we agree to disagree.
I see the confusion. You’re equating consensus with morality. Remember, I’m a relativist, which means each person has his own morality. Consensus mainly comes into play when creating and enforcing laws (i.e., majority rules). So if I lived in the South 100 years ago and was against Jim Crow, that would not be immoral, it would just be against the mainstream. In other words, consensus does not equal morality, it equals laws (in most cases).
I see you dodged the contradiction of your beliefs that I put forth. I’m sure it causes some cognitive dissonance, so I understand the aversion.