Edward Current wrote:

Hi Steve,

I'm fascinated by what exactly triggers the "light bulb moment" when an Evangelical (or similar) realizes for real that something is wrong with that worldview, but for you it was clearly a longer process.

I personally feel that the universe and world by themselves *are* morally neutral, and that pre-human life was absolutely meaningless. I mean, how could life in the Mesozoic Era have had any meaning? However, once humans evolved to the point of having consciousness as we know it, meaning emerged. Morality also emerged (although many believe that a less intellectualized form of morality is genetically built in from our ancestors).

As fully aware, sentient humans with the capacity to truly contemplate and understand our surroundings, I feel that our meaning and purpose is to take care of the earth against our technological affronts, to ease human suffering, to promote joy, laughter, and critical thought, to explore nature through the sciences, and enrich life for others through the arts. And to have these very discussions. To me, that's the meaning of life!

Thanks again for an enlightening read. I'm glad you enjoy my videos.

EJC

My response:

Hi Eddie,

What you've said about meaning is great, we're on the same page in terms of what the meaning of life is. What I think is illogical though, is that as an aitheist you could think that 'meaning' has any objective value. If the universe appeared without any Intelligent 'intention', then whatever the mechanisms were through which we evolved, objective meaning does not exist. There is no evolutionary imperative to look after people in need etc; in fact, natural selection would imply the opposite!

I agree that we have evolved into sentient beings, and in that process, humans, in admitedly diverse ways, came to believe in a Creator in societies accross the globe. Atheists now suggest that we should 'grow out of that', and move on to accept that we're alone. Well, that's fine, except that our societies a built on moral and ethical premises which came out of the idea that we are created. What basis is there for morality and ethics if we're not? Why the hell should anyone care about anything other than their own life and temporary pleasure? Why should I care what happens to my kids; the planet; even myslef? None of it has any real meaning or purpose.

I'm not arguing anything that atheist philosophers aren't already saying. My point is that you, as an atheist, obviously believe that your life has meaning. That belief, in my oppinion is totally illogical. Give it up dude; you're no more important than a tick!

Edward responded:

Hi Steve,

I certainly don't claim to have all of the answers or pretend that I'm here to 'teach' others. But I might have a few ideas.

I think I touched on one of your points earlier -- that pre-human life, e.g. in the Mesozoic Era, was meaningless, except for the fact that every individual was trying to best preserve and pass on its own genes. But a couple of million years ago, when humans became the (apparently) first life forms to be fully conscious, comprehend their mortality, and understand suffering on many levels, meaning began to emerge (or change). We are able to intellectualize as well as viscerally understand the big picture with regard to the plight of other life and even non-life. I have to imagine we're the first species to go out of its way to help another species that has no direct impact on our own well being (such as a rare, endangered bird). When consciousness evolved to the point of intellectualization, we started doing "illogical," non-selfish things because of our clear understanding of suffering. It's like, when and if we develop a computer that can approach human thought processes, rather than merely being purely mathematical and analytical, we'll probably see it doing some "illogical," unexpected, or inconsistent things.

Does it work for you that we created meaning through intellectualization? After all, a lizard or a finch cannot intellectualize, and therefore for them, meaning cannot even exist; it cannot ask that question.

EJC

My reply:

Hi Ed,

Thanks for keeping this going; I really do appreciate your interest.

With the greatest of respect, I think you're missing the point; or I'm simply not doing a good enough job of outlining what I'm getting at. It is not an issue whether we intellectualised meaning, or whether we grew to understanding meaning through some kind of religious encounter with a Creator. The kind of meaning that you are talking about is subjective. It is meaning that we create for ourselves. It is why I value my children more than someone else's child; because they are mine; I invest them with meaning.

The kind of meaning I am talking about is objective meaning. If we look at things objectively, I cannot claim my children are more valuable than any other children, because objectively speaking, they are of equal value.

Subjectively, human beings have evolved to create meaning in their lives. We naturally invest our life and experiences with subjective meaning and importance. I support the 49ers, even though I've never lived in SF. I care whether they win or lose, even though I don't know any of them.

Objectively however, if the universe began without any 'causal Agent', then objective meaning cannot exist. There is no ultimate reason why the universe exists, other than physical processes causing each step of development. Objective meaning, ultimate meaning in the atheist's universe cannot exist. (This point is accepted by people like Dawkins and atheist philosophers.)

Because of this, whilst caring for those in need, other species etc, may make sense subjectively, because we invest them with meaning; it means nothing objectively. No life actually matters. Nothing matters.

So I return to my point, that atheists have no logical basis for arguing that any caring action is objectively 'good'. Religions can (whether you agree with their particular understanding of 'good' is another argument) because they argue that the universe was created, and that there is an ultimate 'intention' behind the universe.

This issue, I believe is the Achilles heel of atheism. Atheists are generally good people. They live, investing meaning in their lives, and the life on the planet; but their moral/ethical foundations are built on nothing objective. (In fact, I would argue that their moral/ethical boundaries are inherited from the religious beliefs of their forefathers!) Atheists cannot argue why murder is objectively a bad thing. In the big picture, murder doesn't matter; it means nothing.

Let me know what you think.

Best wishes,

Steve.

Edward's reply:

The theist viewpoint is that there exists a deity who creates, protects, and teaches. This gives the universe meaning, the way meaning is imbued upon a parent, who has a mission or goal in creating, protecting, and teaching his or her children. I'll concede that if this deity doesn't exist, then that kind of meaning cannot exist in the universe. I don't think there's any way out of that. One can always take the nihilist perspective that if all there is are atoms and particles like numbers in a meaningless phone book, then on the grandest scale, everything is devoid of ultimate purpose, as you've said.

However, I think you make a leap in suggesting that if "There is no ultimate reason why the universe exists," that therefore "meaning cannot exist." I believe that meaning *can* emerge from ultimate meaninglessness -- even objective meaning (although at some point, we may need to better define what "meaning" is, just to be certain there actually *can* be objective meaning).

The way I see it, in our particular homo sapiens sapiens line that emerged out of Africa 100,000-50,000 years ago, three things developed at once: (1) our brains and bodies, giving us language and the ability to intellectualize; (2) a social contract that imposed basic rules of group behavior as well as ways of dealing with transgressors, which has been passed down into every human culture that exists today; and (3) religious traditions, perhaps ultimately born out of the adaptive advantages of a proclivity toward such things, as we've discussed.

I feel that these three things developed in tandem, intertwined and inseparable. The religious traditions were certainly useful in enforcing the social contract (plenty of that in the Old Testament), and I'll also concede that this worked. Clearly, humans survived and thrived. It was in each successive culture's best interests to keep the social contract going, as some kind of order was necessary for the groups' long-term survival. And it may very well be that splinter groups that abandoned the contract for anarchy quickly killed themselves off. That may have been the demise of the Neanderthals. Perhaps they were atheists! I'll grant you that. Although, we have to remember that primitive social contracts exist in primate groups, no it's not like we invented the idea of social order. It merely became intellectualized when we were finally able to ask, "So, *why* can't I kill my neighbor?" There had to be intellectual answers. And the religious traditions were perfect for that task.

Even without a creating deity, something like murder *does* matter, because it violates the contract and puts the community at risk. It *does* matter to look out for our neighbor, because not doing so would deny the very foundational concepts that got us from a small group of bushmen to a modern city. Even though the social contract can't be defined in terms of atoms or genes (though it may have genetic foundations), I'd say that because caring actions are part of the contract, they *are* objectively good, having allowed our species to survive and thrive (which is the only real purpose in a deity-free life) -- to the point where now we have many sources of subjective meaning in our lives: art, science, literature.

In a modern democracy with a justice system, the contract is enforced through secular means. Swearing on the Bible aside, the state no longer holds religious tradition over the heads of societal transgressors (although it is still a feature of communities). I just think we have the tools now to continue to prosper without the religious traditions altogether. But that's just me.

EJC