Why Life is *NOT* Absurd Without God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- In the video and article linked below, Dr. Craig explains why he thinks life is ultimately meaningless if God does not exist.
• The Absurdity of Life ...
www.reasonablefaith.org/writi...
I invited an expert on the topic of God and the meaning of life to critique Dr. Craig's view. My guest is Dr. Tim Mawson, a professor of philosophy at Oxford University. Dr. Mawson has published a book, called "God and the meanings of Life. You can find the link to the book below.
www.amazon.com/God-Meanings-L... - Розваги
Underrated channel 🎉
I really tried to understand Mawson's reasoning, but from what I can discern he really never makes much of an argument. He just asserts Craig is overstating the case, briefly offers some vague weak case for platonism, and giggles at Craig's video segments a lot.
It's so clear. If naturalism is true, humans are the accidental byproduct of mindless purposelss unguided processes. On this wolrdview we dont even rise to the level of robots. Robots are created by intelligent agents for purposes. Our sense of morality is ultimately determined by mindless chemical processes and is completely subjective. If you are lucky enough to have been born healthly and have a decent life in an affluent country, you simply lucked out. Many people arent so lucky. And yes, most of the evil in the world will not receive justice, nor the good any reward. All of our feelings of love are "programmed" into us by those same mindless chemical processes. And we will perish along with the purposeless unconscious universe that gave rise to us. If this isn't adsurd I don't know what is. Mawson said absolutely nothing that mitigates any of this. Craig is right.
I find it difficult to think you closely listened to Mawson’s critique if you concluded that he just made assertions without argument and giggled a bit.
Substantive points Mawson made include:
-Distinction between extreme supernaturalism, moderate supernaturalism, and extreme naturalism.
- man’s life collectively as a species vs. man’s life as individuals.
-offering different definitions of meaning that used in the literature.
- offering at least two counterexamples to Craig’s claim or assumption that an action is valuable only if it never ends or changes/affects final outcome. Here I’m thinking of the Chopin example and the life-saving medical intervention example.
-offering a way that one’s individual life can have objective purpose as long as it links up to objective norms and values in the right way.
Less substantive points include:
-showing that Craig terribly misinterpreted Bertrand Russell
-showing that the play “No exit” and it’s final line actually make the opposite point of what Craig says they make.
My suspicion is that you find Mawson’s comments to be lacking because in the video he never offered an argument showing how one can have objective moral values and duties apart from God.
But I told Mawson not to address that because I’d already made a video with Dustin Crummett where he critiqued Dr. Craig’s moral argument.
Would you agree with Mawson and I on at least this much. If objective values and duties can exist apart from God, then individuals can still have meaning and value in life?
I agree with Craig about God's necessity for objective meaning as I don't think moral realism without theism is plausible, but I disagree with him on immortality's necessity. If God exists but we die forever, our lives are still meaningful. This is especially clear on Eternalism, where the life of a human a thousand years ago exists tensenessly 'forever' and hence its meaning 'always' is present in reality. Then again, I think that objective meaning (coming from moral realism, which I think requires or strongly implies theism) must be granted for that time-slice.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You might enjoy the video I linked at the end where I had Dr. Dustin Crummett critique Dr. Craig's moral argument. There, Dustin pushes back on the idea that God grounds morality. However, Dustin has defended the argument that moral knowledge is strong evidence for God.
Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere but has WLC interacted with The Analytic Christian over these videos at all? He's a big boy and doesn't need his fanbois to defend him but I'm sure he'd have thoughtful responses to the responses! Such is the back and forth of philosophy.
Yes, Dr. Craig has responded to two of my videos in this series on his Reasonable Faith podcast. I'll put the two links below.
www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/luke-barnes-and-fine-tuning
www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/james-franklin-critiques-applicability-of-math-argument
@@TheAnalyticChristianI hope he responds to this
I am still going through the video. But just wanted to note about Craig's article. It's a pretty powerful rhetorical tool. One which I was convicted of years ago when I heard him give a talk about it. I even found myself in agreement with it.
But as I grew and was exposed to other philsiocphcal views I began to find it less persuasive. It doesn't hold up as well as some of his other lectures or philsiocphcal works. Especially when you begin to peel back the rhetorical devices.
I ultimately found it fairly devastating and negligent much later when a philosophically literate young man (who happened to be an atheist) wrote in and found himself persuaded by Craig's talk. He was mired in existential dread.
I remember many other fellow theists reveling in that as if it were some sort of win. I just found myself crushed for him. I hope he is flourishing now. But it didn't sit right with me.
Anyways, thanks for having these talk and critiques Jordan. And a thank you to Professor Mawson for taking the time. Truly fantastic stuff!
I too was once convinced of Dr. Craig's view here, but changed my mind for the kinds of reasons Dr. Mawson lays out in the video and in his book. Glad you found the video of value.
I think the argument should be used mainly for people who bring in skepticism or solipsism into denying existence of God. It would be good way to attack them by using their reasoning againsts them by saying according to your reasoning ...
But this probably works for lay people who is inconsistent with their beliefs. And many atheists deny some skepticism and solipsism so it doesnt work as a really good argument. Also I think this argument would be better if meaning was replaced by things like human dignity.
Also, Im not sure but maybe the meaning argument can be improved by the fact that naturalists atheists deny free will?
I have a question. It would seem that you like critiquing and challenging Dr Craig's views a lot on your channel and I wonder why that is? Don't get me wrong here please, I am just curious, I'm in no way saying that what you are doing is bad as I like to see various options and points of views on important questions
Fair question. Thanks for asking.
First, Dr. Craig is widely known among both Christians and non-Christians interested in apologetics, philosophy, and theology. Videos interacting with *his* views are more likely to be viewed than videos interacting with some obscure or relatively unknown pastor, theologian, philosopher, etc.
Second, Dr. Craig had a big influence on my own thinking since his books and videos were among the first that I read and watched respectively when I became a Christian. It is then quite natural that I would think through *his* arguments in particular as opposed to other as I have tried to think for myself and come to my own conclusions.
Those two reasons show why I’ve chosen to focus on Dr. Craig in particular rather than someone else.
There are also reasons why I’ve chosen to make many videos that *critique* Dr. Craig’s views rather than endorse them.
First, I want to expose my viewers to multiple views among theists and in most cases Christians who are experts on these topics. I think of this as a way of helping my viewers be better informed. But in presenting multiple views one can expect disagreement, hence many of the videos in this series tend to be *critiques* of Dr. Craig.
Second, it makes for a more fun/interesting video to watch when there is disagreement. So, I chose to make most of the videos be a critique of Dr. Craig’s views.
Third, I was just curios to see what experts on the topic who were also Christians had to say about Dr. Craig’s views. Those individuals would already be inclined to agree with Dr. Craig since they agree with his conclusions that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, that Jesus is the only means of salvation, etc. Yet many of them think Dr. Craig’s arguments fail, and I simply wanted to know why.
Fourth, I think Christians respectfully and honestly critiquing the views of other Christians can foster a better culture of discourse here on UA-cam. My hope is that anyone who watches this series of videos can say that they respect me and my work for trying to honestly and fairly assess Dr. Craig’s views.
More could be said, but I think that’s enough for now. Thanks again for the question.
@@TheAnalyticChristian and thank you too for the quick response. Yeah, more or less I thought those were the reasons as well. Keep up the good work, your content is amazing and much appreciated
Subjective vs Objective meaning
Can you elaborate on your comment here?
@@TheAnalyticChristiannope, I don't think so
How do you define "objective meaning"?
Lol, I love his discussion of the Russell quote and how delighted he is about it.
I enjoyed his story of tracking down the quote, and then his funny analogy about how it has been misinterpreted by Dr. Craig.
This is the kind of video that I'd watch and agree with before having encountered the rich philosophical tradition of Christian existentialism.
Now, I'd have to concur with Søren Kierkegaard who wrote,
"Every human existence which is not (. . .) conscious of itself before God as spirit, (. . .) whatever it accomplishes, though it be the most amazing exploit, whatever it explains, though it were the whole of existence, however intensely it enjoys life aesthetically, every such existence is after all despair" ~ Søren Kierkegaard
Edit: typos
Why think Kierkegaard is correct here? Doesn't seem that way to me for the kinds of reasons Dr. Mawson describes in the video.
Surely if there is no God then i get to decide my own meaning. And if my meaning is to help people today and hurt people tomoro both positions are equally vaild therefore arbritary. Of course one of those positions goes against society but so what? Are they God now? Does society decide right and wrong? And which society? The modern west or Nazi germany? Why is one better than the other? According to whose standard? Who cares? Either God or Meaninglessness
First of, you completely misunderstand what arbitrary means. Arbitrary = "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system:" If anyone has their own reasons why for their meaning that is not arbitrary at all. Something being subjective and or personal, does not make it arbitrary. Someone can have an arbitrary meaning, but it is not because it is subjective. The whole premise is flawed from the start.
Second, morality has nothing to do with meaning. They are two separate topics. Meaning can include moral things, but not all meanings are moral. For example, someone whose art gives meaning to their life, that has nothing to do with morality. You are committing an equivocation fallacy, by using morality and meaning interchangeably to make your point when they are two very different things. By saying anyone gets to decide their own meaning, it doesn't mean anyone gets to decide what is right. So when you really look at it, your comment makes no sense.
Why doesn't anyone get to decide what's right ?
@@zsaklong4619 Because unlike the question of what gives your life meaning. There is a whole philosophical branch that deals with ethics and morality.
Throughout the history of all mankind, ethics and morality has NEVER been that anyone decides what is right. That is the problem with conflating meaning of life with morality, because they are not the same thing. If someone says that their meaning in life is their son, its the music, or even something as random as collecting every single Star Wars toys they can get their hands on, that is their prerogative. That is how they chose their life, and anyone has little grounds on to say they are wrong. One could say that the meaning of life, can be quite arbitrary.
However, if someone says that the capital punishment is right. Then you would spark a whole debate in which a lot of ethical and philosophical currents about the value of life, the ethical currents and how they see that issue, cultural baggage, empathy, pragmatism, etc. That would make morality the opposite of arbitrary.
If your argument to say morality is arbitrary is because it is culturally dependent. Then, morality with God would also be arbitrary by your definition. Because God's morality is also culturally dependent. Look at the apologist's defense to biblical slavery and how it was due to the culture of the time. Or many arbitrary moral rules the bible has and had, such as not being able to eat pork, shellfish or wear mixed fabrics. That is arbitrary, because there is no reasoning given as to why such things are wrong, it is only wrong because God said so. But then, God changed his mind, and those things were not wrong anymore. Again, with no reasoning involved, therefore arbitrary.
Also, look at morality of Christians and it has changed drastically along with culture. Look at how slavery was right a century ago, and suddenly it isn´t. That was not arbitrary because there was reasoning behind it, but it shows that morality under Christianism also is culturally dependent. Proving your point about Nazi Germany wrong, especially since Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly Christian in its majority.
Exactly!
This is so stupid,if u need the existence of hell and heaven or god to be decent u have mental issues my guy and philosophizing won't help you,buy some common sense
No argument in this entire video.
Hmmm. Why do you say that? Dr. Mawson made claims and supported his claims with reasons. Sounds like an argument to me.
@@TheAnalyticChristian there is no reason without God. This is the ultimate flaw of western Christendom, which barely knew Greek, had bad Latin translations, who absorbed too much Aristotle,
Culminating in Aquinas who wrongfully promoted natural theology and the autonomy of reason.
As an atheist, this is the only Christian channel I follow.
Much respect for criticizing Craig's rhetoric and implausible arguments.
I can see why you like it. A Christian channel that insists on namechecking other Christian philosophers, but never atheist philosophers. The guestlist is a den of cowards.
best channel against Christianity.
@@KudaIzka why say that?
I can't speak for others. But I find it edifying and helps highlight the intellectual and virtuous aspects of the Christian faith. It's educational and emboldening.
@@KudaIzka On the contrary, I think it is the best channel making the case for Christianity and theism. It shows intellectual honesty and responsibility, and it does justice to the opposing side as such earning their respect and attention.
@@KudaIzka how so? I make videos all the time offering new arguments for God published in top-tier journals. Do you watch those videos?
I mean, if "meaning" is just good feeling or an emotion of fulfillment, sure, then I agree with this guy. My issue is: without God, what we find meaningful (or moral, or good, or desirable, evolutionarily or otherwise) is functionally arbitrary.
You said, "without God, what we find meaningful (or moral, or good, or desirable...) is functionally arbitrary." If God does not exist, there would still be objective moral values and duties. A life lived in accord with those objective moral values and duties would be meaningful in an objective sense.
the meaning in my life is to help end suffering and that's why I'm an antinatalist.
You’d be assuming a very strict consequentialism about morality there.
@@TheOtherCaleb yeah, so what?
I agree that one aspect of the meaning of life is to end suffering, yet I still am not an antinatalist.
@@christsservant583 it's unfortunate that the people that are just fine with having children are just fine with perpetuating suffering.
I'll believe you when you begin your antinatalism with yourself. A few seconds of pain vs several years of suffering, what could be worse?
Live your philosophy. Start with yourself.
This subject really is a nonsense: "God gives meaning and purpose." "We'd be robots without god."
I've heard that said hundreds of times by some of the worlds leading theist liars for god fools like Craig and Lennox but I have never heard exactly what meaning or purpose god is supposed to give.
Simply put, what it means is: On Saturday, I am an atheist and my life has no meaning or purpose, on Sunday I "get god" and now my life does have meaning and purpose (recognising literally millions of theists are non-practicing). Yesterday I said "I am an atheist" today I say "I am a theist" and that's the difference between meaning and purpose and none? You're kidding. Why? None of them ever explain how that could possibly work!
What does the absence of god take away. The meaning and purpose of anyone's life is how they feel and how satisfied they are at that time. And god has nothing to do with it other than via a delusion that god does have something to do with it.
People who have lived what they would rate as a good life would like to live forever and there is certainly no difference as to whether you are theist or atheist, it is a biological instinct or imperative of survival without which life wouldn't exist.
Of course some invoke "heaven" as the meaning and purpose. Well that, like all things theist, is a lie. They misinterpret "greed, avarice and lust" for a longer existence as meaning and purpose. Their meaning and purpose is to do whatever to get the prize of heaven. That's no more "meaning and purpose" than a thief securing a gun before a robbery so they have a better chance of getting the money. They do what they need to get what they want and god is just a necessary way to their goal. That has nothing to do with meaning or purpose.
In any event, eternal life has nothing to do with either meaning or purpose. What you do on earth gives meaning and purpose to your life and eternal life is merely translating that experience to not wanting it to end. Not wanting your life to end has nothing to do with having meaning and purpose i.e. if you believe your life has meaning and purpose you want it to continue conversely you do not want your life to continue because that gives your life meaning and purpose.
Need some proof: I believe in god all my life so when I get to heaven there's been a life of meaning and purpose. I am an atheist all my life, I enjoyed it so much I don't want to die and on my deathbed I give my self to Christ, my life had no meaning or purpose when I get to heaven.
So we're both in heaven, unless our "eternity" is of equal happiness regardless of meaning and purpose on earth, heaven and repentance is a failure. So, assuming we are the same, meaning and purpose on earth meant nothing whatsoever.
"We'd be robots" simply refers to gods morals which would work much better if the moral code didn't start 100,000+ years before the god was invented.
So when are we going to get some proof or evidence of what this meaning and purpose is that an atheist doesn't have?
So various purposes and also the ability to discover your purpose are all throughout the bible. You are wrong.
@@nkoppa5332Actually, no I'm not wrong. If I was wrong, the people claiming god gives meaning and purpose would be able to demonstrate it but they can't. Oh, and that includes you apparently. Just another theist claiming purpose is revealed but can't say what it is that could possibly prove me wrong. You see, if god gave your life purpose, that purpose would have been your first and only answer.
@@Lightbearer616 you are still wrong.
My individual purpose is none of your business, the grounds and examples of purpose are in the Bible waiting for you to read them, and spiritual authority of the church Can also help people discover their purpose.
It is demonstrated through these standard entities, and it’s also demonstrated through the impossibility of the contrary.
@@nkoppa5332Yes, as I said, Christians are all talking about and trying to sell "meaning" and "purpose" but, like your god, there is no proof or evidence it exists so it's a totally pointless subject to bring up. And you can't debate what I have actually said as evidence it's a nonsense beyond your imagination.
Do you really think: "My individual purpose is none of your business" that obfuscation means anything? "I have purpose, but it's secret" ROTFLOL.
Yes, life is indeed without ultimate significance. So what? Why does there have to be eternal meaning to life? Give me one reason WHY we have to be so important beyond the course of our own life and legacy as humans on Earth? Yeah, literally Apologist's only reason is because they don't want it to be this way. Your personal desire to have eternal meaning is irrelevant as to whether you have eternal relevance. That isn't how things work at all. So this personal desire of yours isn't proof of god at all. It's just idiotic on the face of it. It is so stupid it is mind blowing that people take this seriously. Heck, this guy talking about this statement by WLC, is way more effort than the concept deserves... As even is my writing right now.
Nobody is saying that it’s an argument for God, it’s just that life is meaningless without Gos
@chrisfieramosca Yeah, they are though. Tons of people literally say that life has no meaning without God, therefore, god must exist. It makes no sense, but they think it is a good argument. The "smarter" ones like WLC wrap it up in fancy language, but that is what they are really saying.
Also, what exactly is the point of these topics at all for apologists if not to prove God? That is their entire shtick, and this is a stupid thing to get into if it isn't furthering your agenda of proving atheists wrong, so of course that is what they are saying.
No need to be so hostile. I understand it is touchy subject that carries a lot of baggage. But this is a space for respectable and courteous discourse.
Your personal incredulity to the legitimacy of the discussion carries no bearing on its actual worth and substance. Don't find it fruitful? Fine, to each their own.
Also, no, not all Christians or apologists argue along the lines Craig does. There are plenty of Christian existentialists that would agree with you and disagree with Craig.
Like the other commenter said though, it's not exactly an argument for God. Although I will temper it and say some individuals might use it that way. Regardless though, meaning and ultimate significance aren't the only reason(s) for belief. To say otherwise would be incredibly reductive and for too sweeping of a generalization.
But if you don't think it deserves any attention, that's fine. At least you could have the courtesy to keep that to yourself, in other words if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all. Don't read me wrong though, I don't mean that as disrespect. I hope you can find these videos meaningful and worthy of contemplation.
Have a good one
@inquisitiveferret5690 Wow, you took what I said way more personally than it deserved.
@@arentol7 I didn't take it personally. But definitely perceived your tone as hostile. If I'm wrong then I apologize.
But you did paint in exceedingly broad strokes my guy.