Naturalism’s High Priests
September 7th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Modern naturalism is often promulgated with a missionary zeal that has powerful religious overtones. The popular fish symbol many Christians put on their cars now has a naturalist counterpart: a fish with feet and the word “Darwin” embossed into its side. The Internet has become naturalism’s busiest mission field, where evangelists for the cause aggressively try to deliver benighted souls who still cling to their theistic presuppositions. Judging from the tenor of some of the material I have read seeking to win converts to naturalism, naturalists are often dedicated to their faith with a devout passion that rivals or easily exceeds the fanaticism of any radical religious zealot. Naturalism is clearly as much a religion as any theistic world-view. The point is further proved by examining the beliefs of those naturalists who claim to be most unfettered by religious beliefs.
Take, for example, the case of Carl Sagan, perhaps the best-known scientific celebrity of the past couple of decades. A renowned astronomer and media figure, Sagan was overtly antagonistic to biblical theism. But he became the chief televangelist for the religion of naturalism. He preached a world-view that was based entirely on naturalistic assumptions. Underlying all he taught was the firm conviction that everything in the universe has a natural cause and a natural explanation. That belief—a matter of faith, not a truly scientific observation—governed and shaped every one of his theories about the universe.
Sagan examined the vastness and complexity of the universe and concluded—as he was bound to do, given his starting point—that there is nothing greater than the universe itself. So he borrowed divine attributes such as infinitude, eternality, and omnipotence, and he made them properties of the universe itself.
“The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be,” was Sagan’s trademark aphorism, repeated on each episode of his highly-rated television series, Cosmos. The statement itself is clearly a tenet of faith, not a scientific conclusion. (Neither Sagan himself nor all the scientists in the world combined could ever examine “all that is or ever was or ever will be” by any scientific method.) Sagan’s slogan is perfectly illustrative of how modern naturalism mistakes religious dogma for true science.
Sagan’s religion was actually a kind of naturalistic pantheism, and his motto sums it up perfectly. He deified the universe and everything in it—insisting that the cosmos itself is that which was, and is, and is to come (cf. Revelation 4:8). Having examined enough of the cosmos to see evidence of the Creator’s infinite power and majesty, he imputed that omnipotence and glory to creation itself—precisely the error the apostle Paul describes in Romans 1:20-22:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Exactly like the idolaters Paul was describing, Sagan put creation in the Creator’s rightful place. Carl Sagan looked at the universe and saw its greatness and concluded nothing could possibly be greater. His religious presuppositions forced him to deny that the universe was the result of intelligent design. In fact, as a devoted naturalist, he had to deny that it was created at all. Therefore he saw it as eternal and infinite—so it naturally took the place of God in his thinking.
The religious character of the philosophy that shaped Sagan’s world-view is evident in much of what he wrote and said. His novel Contact (made into a major motion picture in 1997) is loaded with religious metaphors and imagery. It’s about the discovery of extraterrestrial life, which occurs in December 1999, at the dawn of a new millennium, when the world is rife with Messianic expectations and apocalyptic fears. In Sagan’s imagination, the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe becomes the “revelation” that affords a basis for the fusing of science and religion into a world-view that perfectly mirrors Sagan’s own belief system—with the cosmos as God and scientists as the new priesthood.
Sagan’s religion included the belief that the human race is nothing special. Given the incomprehensible vastness of the universe and the impersonality of it all, how could humanity possibly be important? Sagan concluded that our race is not significant at all. In December 1996, less than three weeks before Sagan died, he was interviewed by Ted Koppel on “Nightline.” Sagan knew he was dying, and Koppel asked him, “Dr. Sagan, do you have any pearls of wisdom that you would like to give to the human race?”
Sagan replied,
We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of other galaxies, which make up a universe, which may be one of a very large number—perhaps an infinite number—of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering. [ABC News Nightline, December 4, 1996.]
In a book published posthumously, Sagan wrote, “Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. [Pale Blue Dot (New York: Random House, 1994), 9.]
Although Sagan resolutely tried to maintain a semblance of optimism to the bitter end, his religion led where all naturalism inevitably leads: to a sense of utter insignificance and despair. According to his wordview, humanity occupies a tiny outpost—a pale blue speck in a vast sea of galaxies. As far as we know, we are unnoticed by the rest of the universe, accountable to no one, and petty and irrelevant in a cosmos so expansive. It is fatuous to talk of outside help or redemption for the human race. No help is forthcoming. It would be nice if we somehow managed to solve some of our problems, but whether we do or not will ultimately be a forgotten bit of cosmic trivia. That, said Sagan, is a perspective well worth pondering.
All of this underscores the spiritual barrenness of naturalism. The naturalist’s religion erases all moral and ethical accountability, and it ultimately abandons all hope for humanity. If the impersonal cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be, then morality is ultimately moot. If there is no personal Creator to whom humanity is accountable and the survival of the fittest is the governing law of the universe, all the moral principles that normally regulate the human conscience are ultimately groundless—and possibly even deleterious to the survival of our species.
Sagan was religious in his naturalism complete with a form of salvation for humanity. His book, ‘The Demon Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the dark’ – makes that clear. He suggested that the best hope for man is to try to establish space stations on other planets and the moon so that in the event of a nuclear holocaust – the human race would not be completely wiped out. With the philosophy of insignificance and ultimately despair – I wonder what a naturalist would say to a person contemplating suicide?
I’d just like one Christian to give me one good reason why I should believe the universe was created by their god.
“The naturalist’s religion erases all moral and ethical accountability.”
Incorrect. We are accountable to other humans; to society. Theists pass the buck.
The Christian story provides absolutely no meaning to our existence. As a story analyst by profession, a rule to remove something from the story if it adds nothing. In the Christian story, humanity adds nothing to the story. The Christian god is still glorious, with or without humanity.
In the Christian story, humanity makes no difference. Therefore there is no purpose to our lives. We are living for no reason other than the whim of a god.
This demonstrates the fraudulent nature of the Christian promise that their belief will provide you with a meaning for your life.
The meaning to our existence is to worship the living God, and you are right God is glorious without us in the picture, but yet He still created the heavens and the earth and gave us dominion over all his creatures. God is merciful and gracious to fallen mankind.
Simon explains what naturalists believe: “We are accountable to other humans; to society. Theists pass the buck.”
I’ve never quite understood this. Without an external moral standard, why would we be accountable to other humans or to society? What is it that would compel us to treat others well? And certainly why would I do anything self-sacrificial on behalf of another? Even if you were to argue that lower forms of life have developed built-in species-protection mechanisms (otherwise, they would have died out long ago), a sentient, self-aware (and essentially self-focused) being such as a human can make other choices. What difference would it make to me whether my species – or even my family – survives after I’m gone?
Simon is right to dispute the notion that naturalists have no moral theory – they always do. His comment that “theists pass the buck” is also worthy of some thought. It reminds me of Sartre’s conception of “bad faith”: the accusation that in religion people do not take total responsibility for their own actions, but I don’t think it can be proven that Christianity necessarily produces that effect.
Also, both Sartre’s and Simon’s positions – even if they are right – do not save them from promoting what is an essentially vacuous belief – that humankind’s only purpose is to further humanity’s onward progress even after ones individual death. Like Ericson’s has stated, if there is no infinite consciousness in play, I don’t see why ethical behavior would “really” matter at all.
Simply put, every time I bump up against the implications of believing in naturalism, I am reminded that believing it means believing in ultimate “pointlessness.” Thus, if one reasons consistently, one must admit that (from a naturalist’s perspective) it should be no MORE pointless to be a theist – and upon further inspection, (I hope Simon will realize this) it is far from pointless!
When naturalists argue against theism, they only betray the fact that they DO believe in something of universal value. Their very arguments are evidence against any “true” belief in their own conclusions.
When asked for any pearls of wisdom, Sagan responded that our insignificance is “well worth pondering.” I would have loved for the follow-up question to have been, “Why?” What could possibly make such a perspective worthy of our mental attention? What could be gained from such musings if nothing we do, say, or think matters in the cosmic scheme?
Those who want a debate over theism would probably find it better to visit http://triablogue.blogspot.com. I don’t think the proprieters of sfpulpit intend it to be a debating forum between believers and unbelievers. Triablogue is there for just that purpose.
Jeremy: “The meaning to our existence is to worship the living God.”
Jeremy, that is a very lazy use of the word “meaning”. To have meaning our lives have to ADD something. What exactly do our lives ADD? As you say, your god is still glorious without us in the picture, so our existence is just as futile in your vision of the world. What is the point of my existence? Nothing, because I do not add anything that would not already be there without me ie: your god’s glory.
Gary: “What is it that would compel us to treat others well? And certainly why would I do anything self-sacrificial on behalf of another?”
These are old questions but still… We are taught as children to behave in a manner which is approved by the society we live in. In the Western society, most notably in the Christian dominated USA, it is deemed ok to consume vast quantities of the planets resources without limit. We are brought up to believe this is ok and so we do it and we’re encouraged; even applauded.
In other societies, this would be seen as a disgracefully arrogant and wasteful way of living.
Morality is clearly a construct of a society’s values.
“What difference would it make to me whether my species – or even my family – survives after I’m gone?”
Complicated question but essentially you are driven by nature’s instinct for your genetic material to survive.
Mark: “I am reminded that believing it means believing in ultimate “pointlessness.””
Like I said, Christianity only provides the appearance of meaning. If you scratch the surface, we find humanity has no ultimate purpose (except to live, die and go to heaven/hell – but for what?).
Is it just me or does it seem that with things not going well in Iraq and the “failings” of a “Christian” president that those in the naturalistic/atheistic camps are really getting louder? Tying Christianity to the Right means an increase in attack at Bush is likewise an increasing attack on Creationism? Anyone else see this trend? This debate is almost inseperable from politics in the minds of many.
(Simon the Nihilist ponders)
We are taught as children to behave in a manner which is approved by the society we live in. In the Western society, most notably in the Christian dominated USA, it is deemed ok to consume vast quantities of the planets resources without limit. We are brought up to believe this is ok and so we do it and we’re encouraged; even applauded.
In other societies, this would be seen as a disgracefully arrogant and wasteful way of living.
(Fred Responds)
Living in the USA, I can assure you this characture of redstate Americans consuming vast quantities of our planets resources with utter abandon is absurd.
Enviromental legislation has run riot and has passed some of the most ridiculously restrictive laws imaginable.
Moreover, it is just plain leftist propoganda that says the West, particularly the US, is a great waster of resources. Third world countries waste way more and pollute way more than the US will ever and can ever do. That is why they are third world.
Simon is just woefully misinformed by bad sources.
And, there is just too much of the planet to not waste. Even if we were wasting needlessly as Simon suggests, the resources are so vast and in such abundance, that it will take 10,000 years to waste it at the current rate. Recycling is a fraud.
I would recommend reading Michael Crichton’s book, State of Fear, to put such rhetoric into balance.
(Simon the Nihilist continues)
Morality is clearly a construct of a society’s values.
(Fred) Then why is there a value placed upon what is considered “wasteful?” You shouldn’t even raise it as an example. Let us say we have constructed our societies morals to say that humans have earned the right to waste as much resources as they deem fit. If the other countries believe waste is wrong, who cares? Why should we care what they think? Who says, in a nihilistic, a-god worldview that I should even bother helping my fellow man in understanding that morality?
(Simon goes on)
Complicated question but essentially you are driven by nature’s instinct for your genetic material to survive.
(Fred) So it doesn’t matter then if I have to squash the lesser society’s inorder to accomplish that goal? If they can’t keep up with our evolving, progressive society, they should be weeded out with a societal version of natural selection. If that means we have to dominate them, then so be it. You would had made a terrific Nazi.
Still, you have to answer the question as to “instinct.” That is a metaphysical concept, not one purely biological.
And you will be hard pressed to explain the self-destructive tendencies among many people. This just goes to demonstrate that Darwinianism, taken to its logical conclusion, doesn’t work in the real world.
Fred
I’m grateful to Simon for his contribution to this discussion. I enjoy having my convictions challenged and tested so that I can better refine my beliefs and understanding.
One idea that hasn’t received a lot of attention is the idea of “meaning.” According to Simon meaning is achieved when I ADD something. I’m curious how this “addition” can be evaluated in a world where value is relative. Did John Mark Karr gain meaning in his life because he added to the t.v. ratings and watercooler discussions? Ultimately, isn’t the naturalist still left with his own subjective interpretation of whether or not his life has meaning?
Simon – you should note that this blog started with Sagan’s position and how it leads ultimately to insignificance and despair. I don’t believe this is a highly controversial point. Bertrand Russell readily admitted to such a conclusion to his own similar philosophy. Perhaps you acknowledge this as well and are now merely playing the skeptic as to whether Christianity can provide meaning?
Christianity teaches the incredible truth that there is a God who created us and that we as a race turned away from Him in sin and rebellion. This God did not turn His back on humanity but instead sent His Son to redeem lost sinners thru the cross of Jesus Christ. He offers forgivness of sins and a place in a future kingdom where sin will no longer exist to those who trust in Him.
Contrast this with the view of the naturalist:
When man dies – he ceases to exist
Everything he lived and loved and cared about – vanishes forever
While he lives on earth – he may choose to live according to conventional societal norms [i.e. the naturalist morality] – or he may not.
But – in the end – what does it really matter if he loves his neighbor or hits him over the head with a brick? He will die and cease to exist all the same. [actions become meaningless in this system]
In the Christian view – actions are weighed by God Himself in a future day of judgment
That makes one’s actions highly significant
i.e. – if I kill my neighbor I will answer to God
Also – it is not accurate to describe the Christian’s view of morality as passing the buck. We do believe in God’s forgiveness – for no one is without sin. But – when a person embraces the God of the Scriptures – their moral incentive flows from their desire to live a life that honors God and that allows one to live with a clean conscience.
The ‘morality’ of the naturalist is limited to societal and governmental measures of accountability – which are often quite weak.
Plus – naturalism has the thorny problem of explaining why we feel anything is right or wrong. If we are just evolved animals – where does the moral ‘ought’ or ‘ought not’ come from? Who says it’s wrong to kill, steal, etc. These are not merely social conventions but rooted in a transcendant moral law. Mere animals do not share these moral dilemmas.
Fred: “Living in the USA, I can assure you this characture of redstate Americans consuming vast quantities of our planets resources with utter abandon is absurd.”
The US uses more resources per-head than eany other nation in the world, by a loooong way. I don’t have the figures at hand but I can go look them up for you if you want. How can you say the third world wastes more resources – this is just a joke. Have you been to Africa recently? I have. I met people, lucky ones with decent jobs, who wanted my old worn-out bath towel and cheap broken sunglasses. I even had to sign a form saying I’d given to him what was, to me, common household rubbish, in case anyone accused him of stealing it.
How can they waste resources when they don’t have any?
Wake up and come out of your bubble Fred. Your arrogance is extremely un-Jesus-like.
Fred: “Then why is there a value placed upon what is considered “wasteful?””
Why shouldn’t a civilised society place value on careful management of resources?
Fred: “Who says, in a nihilistic, a-god worldview that I should even bother helping my fellow man in understanding that morality?”
How do Christians get to accuse others of being nihilistic when the Christian story provides no meaning for our existence and is therefore equally as nihilistic. It’s a good con-trick, I agree.
It is in our nature to help our fellow man. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? Perhaps it’s because it’s too positive an image of mankind…
Oh, but wait, I thought it was us atheists who promoted the negative images. Oh, but it seems Christians are the negative ones after all.
Fred: “So it doesn’t matter then if I have to squash the lesser society’s inorder to accomplish that goal? If they can’t keep up with our evolving, progressive society, they should be weeded out with a societal version of natural selection. If that means we have to dominate them, then so be it. You would had made a terrific Nazi.”
What the… Excuse me, would you mind not putting words into my mouth and then calling me a Nazi for saying them?
Did I say it doesn’t matter? That’s your conclusion, not mine.
Fred: “Still, you have to answer the question as to “instinct.” That is a metaphysical concept, not one purely biological.”
How so?
“And you will be hard pressed to explain the self-destructive tendencies among many people.”
Hard-pressed but not impossible. Could you be more specific? As you know, we are unique among living things in that we have civilisation which does unusual things to complex minds. Besides, many animals display self-destructive tendencies. If you want a very simplistic (due to not wanting to post a 10,000 word reply) it makes sense for individuals in a group who feel a low self-esteem, ie: a low (perhaps negative) value to the group’s survival would sacrfice their own lives for the benefit of the group’s overall surival chances.
Take the example of Captain Oats in Scott’s pole expedition. Knowing that his physical condition was putting the whole group in danger, he took his life.
The individual sacrificing himself for the good of the group is a powerful theme in human civilisation, isn’t it Fred? And it clearly has survival benefits for humanity as a whole.
So, there’s an explanation for you.
I’m still waiting for any kind of explanation as to the meaning the Christian story provides us for our existence.
Scott: “According to Simon meaning is achieved when I ADD something. I’m curious how this “addition” can be evaluated in a world where value is relative.”
I’m looking for the purpose to my life. Why was I created? What do I ADD to this universe? How do you evaluate it, Scott?
Jerry: “Perhaps you acknowledge this as well and are now merely playing the skeptic as to whether Christianity can provide meaning?”
To a certain extent. Let’s say a lack of meaning is a sickness. Along comes the doctor with his magic elixir which claims to cure this illness: it’s called Christianity. But does it really cure it?
In my opinion, no.
“Christianity teaches the incredible truth that there is a God who created us and that we as a race turned away from Him in sin and rebellion.”
I know what the magic elixir claims it does. But would you buy an elixir from a stanger without it being properly tested? Where is the meaning for our existence which you claim your elixir provides?
“Contrast this with the view of the naturalist:
When man dies – he ceases to exist
Everything he lived and loved and cared about – vanishes forever…”
Contrast this with the view of the Christian:
When man is born he adds nothing to the universe. His life is futile because there is no ultimate purpose for his existence. He is only here upon the whim of an invisible diety. When he dies, his existence continues purposelessly into infinity.
What you describe doesn’t provide meaning. It provides comfort. All stories are for human comfort, including the Christian fairytale: and they all lived happily ever after.
“That makes one’s actions highly significant
i.e. – if I kill my neighbor I will answer to God”
This makes ones actions seemingly significant to your own personal well-being, but apparently insignificant to the universe as a whole.
Your neighbour will go to heaven, you will go to hell. But for what purpose?
“Also – it is not accurate to describe the Christian’s view of morality as passing the buck. We do believe in God’s forgiveness – for no one is without sin. But – when a person embraces the God of the Scriptures – their moral incentive flows from their desire to live a life that honors God and that allows one to live with a clean conscience.”
The ‘morality’ of the Christian is limited to pre-medieval Palestinian societal values – which are often quite weak.
Plus – Christianity has the thorny problem of explaining why it matters what we think is right or wrong. Ultimately, our existence serves no purpose in the Christian story. Therefore what is the purpose of human right or wrong?
“If we are just evolved animals – where does the moral ‘ought’ or ‘ought not’ come from?”
Civilisation. Society. Democracy.
“Who says it’s wrong to kill, steal, etc.”
Often the people who are doing the stealing and killing.
“These are not merely social conventions but rooted in a transcendant moral law.”
Any evidence for that?
“Mere animals do not share these moral dilemmas.”
On a basic level, they do. Want me to elaborate?
Simon,
You are quite an articulate debater. You have definitely considered many angles on this issue. However, I cannot help escaping the conclusion that you have set yourself up as God. You claim that Christian morality is “limited to pre-medieval Palestinian societal values – which are often quite weak.” You have judged the value of another worldview by your own standard, but you have failed to show how your worldview can claim superiority amidst the presupposition of pluralism.
You asked me how I evaluate if my life has meaning.
(Please understand that the following analogy has inherent limitations. It’s still correct as far as it goes.) If I built a machine to do a job for me, I get to be the arbiter of whether or not that machine has “meaning.” In an analogous way, I have been created by God to bring him glory and to enjoy him forever. That is my purpose in life and that is the sole path to finding true meaning in life.
Scott, I have certainly not set myself up as a god. I am an atheist – I don’t believe in gods at all. Is there another way to describe how you see me which doesn’t include gods?
“I have been created by God to bring him glory and to enjoy him forever.”
I’m interested in how you feel this provides meaning and purpose, bearing in mind God’s glory is not increased (or effected) by our existence in any way.
When I put effort into something, I need to feel I’m having an effect for that effort to have meaning.
Imagine an employee who, no matter how hard he works, the company he works for never improves or changes due to his actions, or even thanks him for his work; he even begins to realise the work he does could just as well not be done and the company would be no worse off. He would begin to wonder why the company is paying him and would probably end up either resigning or just sitting in his chair all day with his feet on his desk.
As these series of posts are attacks on naturalism/atheism, I do feel it is right that any who agree with these posts provide concrete demonstrations of the points made. If naturalism is bad because it provides no meaning, let us see the real meaning provided by Christianity.
If you attack something, it’s only fair you back up those attacks.
Whether the Christian message as set forth in the Bible is objectively true or not, does not depend on whether it does or doesn’t provide meaning or purpose to any particular individual (nor on any of the other philosophical arguments for that matter – the same could also be said for the truth or not of naturalism by the way). If it’s true, then it’s true – whatever Joe atheist says.
That leaves us with the problem of how we determine which worldview is the correct one – theism or atheism. To determine this I think we have to look to the qualifications of the main proponent(s) of the particular view i.e. if someone is going to ask me to believe something they are telling me (particularly in an area as important as how and why we exist) they need to be able to demonstrate to me why I should listen to them.
Now, the main proponent of Christianity is Jesus Christ, and the proponents of naturalism are many, but let’s say I have the best of them all rolled up into one person (lets call him Charichcarl Dardawgan).
If I asked Charichcarl Dardawgan to give me his qualifications and demonstrate to me why I should listen to him, he’d probably give me a long list of academic qualifications in numerous scientific disciplines, and point me to various theories.
If I asked Jesus Christ for his qualifications and demonstrate to me why I should listen to him, what do you think he would do – I’ll tell you because he’s already done it – he’d first tell me that he was God himself and then procedd to turn water into wine, cure serious illness, raise the dead, have control of natural laws (calming storms and walking on water).
There’ just no contest. Jesus Christ wins hands down.
As a Christian, I’ve often been tempted to give in to the naturalistic worldview (some of the arguments can be quite convincing), but then the issue of explaining Jesus Christ keeps haunting me (aside from just dismissing him, which cannot be given serious consideration).
Simon – Thanks for responding to my comments. You suggest that animals do express moral behavior. Do they also experience guilt? Do they desire forgiveness from other animals when they have mistreated them? I am curious where you go with this?
This is important – because I do think moral behavior – the reality of a transcendant moral law is an important key to the meaning of the universe.
I would also suggest – although you have not stated it directly you seem to imply that the universe is equally meaningless whichever view one takes. This is ultimately a self-defeating proposition. If the universe is meaningless – so are people and so are their thoughts. i.e. you cannot meaningfully assert that the universe has no meaning – otherwise you cut the branch off that you are sitting on.
Simon,
I apologize for calling you “God.” I can understand you, as an athiest, objecting to that label. My point was more that you have declared yourself to be the judge and arbiter of the value of other worldviews, but I am not convinced that you have established your worldview gives you that authority.
It is not that naturalism is bad in some kind of aesthetic sense. It is bad because it is hopelessly wrong–and hopeless by its own admission. It’s no real surprise that the naturalist declares the universe to be meaningless. The writer of Ecclesiastes did that. True meaning must ultimately be grounded in truth. I may find hope in reading about ancient alchemy, but if it’s not true, my hope is meaningless. Naturalism wishes to find validation in science apart from God, but the naturalist worldview is inconsistent and ultimately must borrow from the Christian worldview to establish its foundation for argument.
The Christian worldview gives one the ability to declare other worldviews to be wrong based on the objective standard of a transcendent and sovereign Creator. The naturalist worldview must either rely on the presupposition of an objective right/wrong in order to refute the truth of the Christian worldview or it is completely dependent on the dominant worldview within his society as the foundation from which to argue his positiion.
However, if there is nothing beyond the material universe, there cannot be any transcendent objective standard to appeal to a right or wrong judgment. If the naturalist chooses then to build on the foundation of the dominant worldview, his foundation is only as strong as the power base on which he stands. Should the position of those with the power change, the naturalist worldview stands in danger of self-destructing.
For example, as a Christian, I can say that murder is wrong because it attacks the image of God in man which is an affront to God’s holy character. The naturalist can only stand up against murder if the dominant position of the society validates such a judgment. Incidentally, anthropological studies will validate that murder is not universally condemned or defined the same in every culture. The Christian has a firm basis to combat racism based on the universal imgae of God in man whereas the naturalist has no meaningful reason to do so. Note too that I have used the term “dominant worldview” as opposed to “majority.” Postmodernist philosophy has rightly concluded that without God as the sole arbiter of value and ethics, it is the powerful NOT the majority that define truth, knowledge and value.
If you read the beginning of the Christian story in Genesis 1, you will recognize that man was not put on earth to wonder about his meaning. Man was created in God’s image and given the duty of ruling the earth and subduing it. In doing this within the boundaries that God set up, man reflected God’s nature and character on earth and enjoyed daily personal relationship with God. It was when man violated the boundaries that God imposed that he became alienated from God. Since man chose (and still chooses) to live for his own glory, he lost meaning in life. The rest of the story is the outworking of God’s plan to restore man to the position he lost by the ultimate sacrifice of God incarnate, the man Jesus Christ. His resurrection from the dead validates our entire story and provides the basis for the apostle Paul to state that God’s existence is self-evident. He goes on to state that people cannot escape this knowledge, but they forcibly suppress this truth. God will receive his glory from both of us. I have chosen to give him that glory now by submitting my will to him, calling out to him for mercy to forgive me of my sins and ask for him to re-create me in his image as he created the first man in the beginning. Those to hold to other worldviews will not be able to escape glorifying God since they will not be able to stand up against his righteous judgment. However, they will forfeit the privilege of enjoying him in his presence forever.
Paul, Jerry, Scott.
I’ve heard these arguments before. The post we are commenting on was an attack on naturalism’s supposed destruction of meaning. I’m not defending naturalism, I pointing out the fraudulent nature of the attack.
To me, a Christian who attacks atheism/naturalism for lacking meaning is alike a side-show doctor who first attacks the genuine doctor for not being able to cure a cancer patient and then brings out his magic elixir which he further claims will cure the medically-incurable cancer.
I am not claiming real doctors can cure all cancers.
I am merely speaking out against the fraudulent quack doctor who seeks to sell his fake medicine.
You can talk all you like about your elixir.
You can make up any stories you like describing it’s miraculous properties and ingredients; how amazing things were done 2000 years ago by this magic elxir and how the ‘proof’ is written down in a book which comes with the elixir. But unless you can demonstrate that the elixir works, you are a fraud.
“If this elixir doesn’t work, then there is no cure for this man’s incurable-cancer, so he has nothing to lose by trying it and the atheist doctor is bad for not believing in elixirs” is effectively what you are saying.
The problem with magic elixirs is those who believe in them never look for a real cure.
Who knows, there may be a real meaning to life out there. But if we’re all stuck on magic elixirs peddled to us by side-show quacks, we will never find it.
Simon,
Let me make sure that I understand what you are saying.
1) The “cancer” in your analogy is “lack of meaning”.
2) Christianity is akin to a quack doctor because it cannot provide “meaning.”
3) The criteria for determining meaning is that it must ADD something. For a person to have meaning in the Christian story, they must add something to God. However, by Christianity’s own definitions, this is impossible. Therefore, Christianity cannot provide meaning in life.
Is this a right understanding of your position? Thank you for your patience and efforts to keep this thread focused.
Sounds about right.
I certainly understand Simon’s position that “For a person to have meaning in the Christian story, they must add something to God. However, by Christianity’s own definitions, this is impossible.” since you can’t add to something that doesn’t exist. What I don’t understand is why Christians seem to be conceding the point that we “add nothing to God”? The parable below from Luke 15 3:10 I think strongly challenges that notion. When man repents of his sin and truly becomes a child of God, the simple math clearly appears to be “adding” something to God judging by the reaction of God’s angels.
“3 And he spake unto them this parable, saying, 4 What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? 5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. 7 I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance. 8 Or what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it? 9 And when she hath found it, she calleth together her friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost. 10 Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”
It seems to me that we are moving toward the ultimate question of why God created the world. If we can answer that question – that is the answer to the question of meaning. It all revolves around the concept of God’s glory.
In Revelation 4:11 – the 24 elders fall down and worship God saying, ‘Worthy art Thou our Lord and our God to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed and were created.’
Why did He create the world? Why are we here?
It was His will to create – or IOW – He wanted to
He is God – He can do that
Jonathan Edwards once wrote in his work, ‘The End for which God Created the World’ – ‘We may justly infer what God intends, by what He actually does; because He does nothing inadvertently or without design.’
We see something of what God wanted by what He did
He wanted to create a universe and populate it with moral creatures who could image His glory
Gen. 1:26 – ‘Let us make man in our own image and according to our likeness’
God wanted people to mirror and reflect His glory [the excellencies of His character - things like holiness, goodness, etc.]
Although man was origninally created in the image of God – we know that man today is a fallen creature who does not properly reflect that image
The image is now distorted and disfigured because of sin
Adam and Eve – real people – were rational beings with the capability of choosing good or evil
They chose to rebel against God – in so doing brought sin into the world
We might note – the Fall of man neither took God by surprise nor thwarted His ultimate objectives
His purpose as revealed thru the whole counsel of Scripture is to reclaim part of fallen humanity – to redeem them thru the great cross work of Christ in laying down His life an atonement for sins
At a day in the future – those saved thru faith in Christ will be restored properly to reflect that perfect image
Rom. 8:29 – ‘For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.’
But why did God allow evil in the first place?
Augustine perhaps put it best: ‘God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil at all.’
We really can go no further – other than to say that God is glorified thru not only His act of creation – but even more so thru His greater act of redemption and establishing the new creation
The purpose of salvation was stated by Paul
Eph. 1:3-6 – ‘That we should be holy and blameless . . . to the praise of His glory’
We can grant – the world is described as being in a state of futility under its present state of sin
Rom. 8:20 – ‘The creation was subjected to futility not of its own will but because Him who subjected it in hope, that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.’
There is a level of futility about this world in its present state
Ultimately God is glorified thru His creation – as it will be brought once again to perfectly reflect His image
The entrance of sin and evil – is but a temporary allowance into His universe
Jerry:
Yes, but is your god’s glory increased? If not, humanity has no effect on it. My life is then pointless. My actions to glorify your god are futile. My existence worth nothing.
Cary
That passage does seem to indicate that this god is happier when people repent, but it doesn’t address the purpose of creation.
IF GOD IS NOT CHANGED BY HIS CREATION IT HAS NO VALUE TO HIM – IT ADDS NOTHING.
Simon – We need to distinguish between God’s intrinsic glory and ascribed glory. God’s intrinsic glory is simply who He is – He is altogether glorious and that cannot be added to.
However – there is also such a thing as ‘ascribed’ glory – where the creature recognizes God’s gloriousness or majesty and praises Him for it – lives in a way that ascribes to Him glory
God did not have to create or redeem to become glorious – but the creation serves the purpose of ascribing glory to His Name.
The universe is the arena for putting God’s glory on display so that He may be praised.
Ps. 19:1 – ‘The Heavens are telling of the glory of God’
Ps. 96:3 – ‘Tell of His glory among the nations . . . for great is the Lord and greatly to be praised.
Ps. 96:7, 8 – ‘Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory of His Name.’
Here’s a picture [with severe limitations]: compare this to a group of people attending a music recital where Bach plays a musical masterpiece.
Some will praise his performance and appreciate it – others might critique or even speak against it
Whatever people say about it – does not change the intrinsic nature of the performance or the quality of the musician or value of the piece
However – how one responds to such a performance says more about themselves than about Bach
Also – suppose Bach chose to just sit at home and compose away and never put his ability and musical powers on display – No one could ever praise him for his musical beauty
For God to be ascribed glory – He created the universe – an incredible display of His glory and power. He created rational creatures to populate this arena of His glory – including angels and men.
Our role – is simply to recognize that He is God and He is glorious and to live in light of that. Give Him praise in word and deed. We do add to the measure of ascribed glory given to God.
Whenever dealing with creature/ creator analogies – all have limitations but consider another one:
He is the potter – you are a clay pot
If you are loved by the potter and useful for carrying water in – is that not a meaningful existence?
i.e. – you are doing what you were created to do
If you were created by God to walk in fellowship with Him and give Him glory – that is a meaningful existence
Of course – our problem is that we do not glorify GOD the way we should
Rom. 3:23 – for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
That is where the great cross work of Christ comes into the picture
The person who sees that they have failed to honor God as He deserves – and has sinned against Him – can only be put right with God thru faith in Jesus – belief in His death on the cross for their sins and His subsequent resurrection
Our source of meaning does not come from being able to ‘add to God’ in some sense – but rather in recognizing God’s purposes for us
We are the subjects – He is the King
We were rebellious subjects who deserve to be banished
He calls us back into His kingdom thru His Son
For this we praise Him!
Jerry, thanks for the further explanation.
“If you are loved by the potter and useful for carrying water in – is that not a meaningful existence?”
No. Because in your analogy the pot is useful. The Potter will sell his pots to people who NEED something to carry water. Humanity is not needed for anything in the Christian story. We’re like the pot which is bought to stand on the shelf for decorative reasons.
If you’re saying we merely add decoration to your god’s existence, I don’t find that at all inspiring as a meaning for our existence. It’s no better than being here due to random processes.
In my opinion, if we are merely here to amuse your god, we have every right to be rebellious.
Simon said: “I’d just like one Christian to give me one good reason why I should believe the universe was created by their god.”
Your acceptance of a reason all depends on your definition of ‘good’ – but since you have no real authority or foundation for your definition of ‘good’, here goes anyway:
One Christian’s ‘good’ reason why Simon should believe the universe was created by the God of the Bible (based on the authority of divine revelation, by the way):
Because there are no other plausible explanations for the existence of the universe.
How’s that Sime.
Oh, and by the way, another ‘good’ reason is the scientific methods’ fatally intrinsic flaw of being totally unable to describe truth and reality (and I mean any truth and reality, not just concerning God).
Simon – I would suggest you are confusing ‘need or significance’ with meaning.
Nihilism [the end result of evolutionary thinking] refers to the pointlessness of the universe due to everything being the result of blind forces of nature and random occurrence.
i.e. – there is no real point to the universe and that overflows into the meaningless of existence.
In the Christian understanding of our universe – the universe has a point and a purpose that it serves to the ultimate glory of God.
Now – we may not be able to ‘add to God’ by your definition but that is a far cry from making ones life pointless or meaningless.
Most philosophers – even secular would agree that a person finds meaning when they serve a cause greater than themselves. [They have borrowed truth]
i.e. – meaning is not derived by looking inward but outward
That is consistent with Christian truth
The Christian recognizes it is His duty and privilege to live to the glory of God – first thru putting His trust in Christ – secondly in a life of obedient service
When one recognizes this is the true state of the universe and lines up with it – they find their actions do carry much significance – not only in respect to the Creator but in producing meaningful results in the lives of those we connect with in this world.
I don’t think you really want to be needed in the ultimate sense you are implying
If God needed us to keep Him going or to keep the universe running, etc. – We would be in big trouble
We need God – He doesn’t need us
Even in marriage – I love my wife and she loves me – but I would not want her to need me in an ultimate sense in which if i died she would fall apart.
However – that is a far cry from calling the relationship meaningless
We accept our marriage relationship as a gift from God given to us to enrich our lives – and it does add much to our lives [including 4 kids!]
The universe is what it is – it is ours to recognize what it is and glory in our creator for His goodness – humbly seek His mercy for our rebellious hearts and trust in the atoning death of Christ.
Thanks for the interaction
Simon Said: “If you’re saying we merely add decoration to your god’s existence, I don’t find that at all inspiring as a meaning for our existence. It’s no better than being here due to random processes.”
The simple fact of the matter is that it makes no difference what you or I find “inspiring”. The question at stake here is not whether or not you like the reason you exist, but to explain the reality of it. You cannot pick and choose whatever explanation for reality appeals to your senses.
The logic behind your idea of meaning or purpose is also flawed. God is a rational being, and as such, you cannot claim to know what he may or may not find useful. Let me give an example. When I look at your blog, I cannot see any real, tangible, or in any way significant purpose that it plays in your life. According to your line of thinking, the conclusion that must lead me to is that because it has no purpose you must not have created it, and therefore you do not really exist.
Basically what I am trying to get at here is that there is a lot more to the discussion of God’s existence than a bunch of subjective arguments based on what you or I think is good, true and beautiful.
Jerry,
Thank you for your line of articulation. I would agree with what you are saying.
Simon,
It seems to me that you are saying that I don’t really do anything of value in the world regardless of whose story I am following. I would contend that God COULD get by without us but has chosen not to. I believe that the life of Jesus is pivotal for understanding how God relates to people. You may wish to debate that, but in the Christian story, the transcendent Trinitarian God and Creator of the universe is inseparable from the immanent and incarnate Son of God in the person of Jesus. Theoretically, in the Christian story, God could have responded to humanity in some other way than becoming a human. However, he chose to do it this way. I believe this complements Jerry’s line of reasoning.
Aaron, thank you for your comments.
“When I look at your blog, I cannot see any real, tangible, or in any way significant purpose that it plays in your life. According to your line of thinking, the conclusion that must lead me to is that because it has no purpose you must not have created it, and therefore you do not really exist.”
I think you have completely missed the point, however. This is not a discussion about the existence of a god. This is to reveal the fraudulent nature of John MacArthur’s accusation of the atheist/naturalist lack of meaning.
As I said, I do not defend nor try to claim that atheism/naturalism provides any meaning for our existence. (But I also do not say that it doesn’t)
The Christian story provides no meaning for our existence because nothing changes whether we exist or don’t exist – the Christian god does not need us and has no purpose for us other than to provide him decoration (but even that is not needed, which leaves us wondering why he created us still).
As to the purpose of my blog, am I claiming it provides meaning for me or anyone else? No. If I attacked your blog saying it provided no meaning it would be an empty attack unless I could demonstrate my blog provided meaning.
Aaron, I’m still to be shown why the god-creation story provides more meaning for our existence than a random-creation one.
Paul M: “Because there are no other plausible explanations for the existence of the universe. How’s that Sime.”
I would have to disagree strongly with your definition of the word ‘plausible’, Paul.
“Oh, and by the way, another ‘good’ reason is the scientific methods’ fatally intrinsic flaw of being totally unable to describe truth and reality (and I mean any truth and reality, not just concerning God).”
Paul, it does seem to be a characteristic of the god-believer to make huge, grandiose statements such as these. This is equally as outrageous as the original accusation that atheism removes meaning from our lives.
I would say it depends what truth and reality you are looking for. If you are so skeptical of science, I assume you never visit a doctor, travel by car or use a computer… oops.
Jerry: “Nihilism [the end result of evolutionary thinking] refers to the pointlessness of the universe due to everything being the result of blind forces of nature and random occurrence.”
Jerry, I could easily say the same of Christianity. The end result of Christian thinking is we have absolutely no use in the universe whatsoever and – EVEN WORSE – we live out this pointless existence for eternity!
At least atheism provides an end to the pointlessness, Jerry.
“We need God – He doesn’t need us.”
Exactly my point. Why do you desire to live a life so futile, so empty, like a baby condemned to suckling it’s mother for all eternity, never able to do anything of any merit?
“When one recognizes this is the true state of the universe and lines up with it – they find their actions do carry much significance…”
In what way? Your god doesn’t need us. We can never, ultimately, achieve anything outside of our own existence.
If we can, what is it?
“If God needed us to keep Him going or to keep the universe running, etc. – We would be in big trouble…”
You’ve just picked a couple of meanings out of the hat. Either of those would be better than nothing. It would at least provide my existence with a purpose.
You, and MacArthur have mistaken the concept of the word “meaning” and muddled it up with the concept of the word “comfort”.
All Christianity does is provide human comfort. Not meaning.
This line is particularly frail:
“Even in marriage – I love my wife and she loves me – but I would not want her to need me in an ultimate sense in which if i died she would fall apart.”
Surely your wife would lose something very significant in her life if you died.
However, I think you’re getting away from the point. We’re talking for what purpose a god created us. If it is no more than a parent wanting a child, then the Christian story is no more of an improvement than the atheist story: I already have parents.
Scott: “I would contend that God COULD get by without us but has chosen not to.”
Yes, but you are missing the BIG POINT. WHY has he CHOSEN not to?
You can’t say “we don’t know the mind of God” and abdicate the responsibility of providing an answer when accuse atheism/naturalism of exactly that crime.
If you are going to accuse atheism/naturalism of leading to a nihilistic view, then you better have something meaningful as an alternative.
“I don’t know” is simply not good enough.
Simon – I think i’ve probably cast enough pearls.
I’ll keep my faith – you keep believing that rational, thinking, moral creatures evolved from blind, non rational, non thinking forces.
I think your view requires more faith
Thanks for the discussion
Jerry, I wasn’t asking you to let go your faith. Just stop accusing atheism/naturalism of leading to nihilism when Christianity has no advantage in this respect.
Simon,
I don’t know WHY you have invested so much time in this debate, but that doesn’t really matter as much as engaging with your arguments. I am trying to take what you say about yourself and your worldview at face value. I am trying to interact with what you have said, not with what you have not said or might be possibly thinking. I’m not trying to patronize you. Rather I see this as analogous to wrongly trying to get behind the story that God has given us in the Bible and force him to tell us WHY–to tell us what he is thinking.
I can still have significance without knowing why God chose to create me and give me a responsibility in this world. That is something that the naturalist worldview is unable to offer in any kind of ultimate sense. This IS different than your definition of “meaning.” But then again MacArthur was pointing out naturalism’s lack of significance not the definition of meaning that you are proposing, which really is a round square in the universe.
Scott,
MacArthur attacks my bliefs in this article.
“…his religion led where all naturalism inevitably leads: to a sense of utter insignificance and despair.”
You can surely understand when a Christian makes this attack, I would expect him to provide a very deep and real relief from this supposed “insignificance”.
So, how does the Christian story provide human significance if we are like pots made by the potter because it “pleased him”, only to stand useless on the shelf for all eternity?
MacArthur should back up these attacks or retract them.
Simon,
It seems that the real answer to your struggle lies in the realm of truth. You want MacArthur to back up his attacks with “real relief.” The Bible claims to offer this. Either it is true or it isn’t. Whether or not you currently feel “insignificance and despair” as a result of your beliefs is ultimately irrelevant. I would encourage you to read the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible. It addresses the question of significance that you are looking for.
I want to thank you again for your participation in this discussion. It has really helped me to grapple with what I believe.
Simon – a few things you should keep in mind. You really ought to drop the mantra that MacArthur is attacking your beliefs by asserting that atheism leads to Nihilism. There is no basis for the claim and it makes you look ignorant of the subject. Many atheists readily admit this element of evolution and embrace it.
Aldous Huxley said that he didn’t want the universe to have meaning – so he assumed it didn’t – because that belief allowed him to live however he wanted to. [Ends and Means, p. 270]. Stephen Jay Gould stated that we exist because of random processes and ‘luck’ – we may yearn for a higher meaning to our existence but none exists [Quoted in Ravi Zacharias, 'Can Man Live Without God, p. 31]
Add to the list Bertrand Russell: ‘Some day the sun will grow cold and life on earth will cease. The whole epoch of plants and animals is only an interlude between ages that were too hot and ages that will be too cold. There is no law of cosmic progress, but only an oscillation upward and downward, with a slow trend downward on the balance owing to the diffusion of energy. This, at least, is what science regards as most probable, and in our disillusioned generation it is easy to believe. From evolution, so far as our present knowledge shows, no ultimately optimistic philosophy can be validly inferred.’ [Science and Religion, p. 81]
There is no basis for you to cry ‘foul’ because someone says that atheism leads to nihilism or despair. Your own proponents have already embraced the charge.
As for meaning in Christianity – the point has been made. Just because you can bang out a response on your keyboard – does not mean you have a rational or compelling argument against the case.
You bristle at the idea of needing God – yet you seem to demand that he need us for our existence to be worthy of meaning. I find this fascinatingly egocentric and megalomaniacal. I think the reality is that you do want to be your own god – and you resent the fact that He is in charge and you are not. If He chooses to make you a clay pot for His purposes [Romans 9 - you should read the illustration for yourself] – He has every right to do so.
Jerry, you can bang out a response on your keyboard but that doesn’t provide the human race with a Christian meaning for our existence. I’m afraid your belief fails in this respect, so lets not hear any more warnings from Christians claiming atheism is bad because it leads to meaningless.
“I think the reality is that you do want to be your own god – and you resent the fact that He is in charge and you are not.”
Total rubbish. You claim atheism leaves me at the mercy of an uncaring universe, so how does your claim make sense?
It’s the Christian who is the meglomaniac, thinking humanity is at the centre of this universe. The atheist, on the other hand, humbly sees we are just a spec of sand in it’s vastness.
“If He chooses to make you a clay pot for His purposes…”
What are his purposes, Jerry? It’s a simple question. You keep blah blah blahing about god this and god that but underneath there’s no meaning to it.
There’s no puspose for the process: ‘god creates man -> some men go to heaven’. It’s meaningless. It does not add anything.
Simon:
“I would have to disagree strongly with your definition of the word ‘plausible’, Paul.”
Plausible – seeming reasonable or probable (Oxford dictionary). That’s exactly the definition I intended. Is there any other?
Simon:
“Paul, it does seem to be a characteristic of the god-believer to make huge, grandiose statements such as these.”
What’s huge and grandiose about it? The scientific method uses inductive reasoning to reach its conclusions, which always lead to formal fallacy. Science can only ever, at best, give an approximation of anything (and never knows how close to reality that approximation is).
Simon:
“I would say it depends what truth and reality you are looking for.”
I wasn’t aware that there were so many! Surely there can only be one. The laws of logic tell us this don’t they? Something cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same sense.
Simon:
“If you are so sceptical of science, I assume you never visit a doctor, travel by car or use a computer… oops.”
I didn’t say that science was of no practical use. But why shouldn’t I be sceptical if your last statement is anything to go by. If there are so many realities and truths, how do I know which scientist has got ‘the’ truth. How do I know that what a doctor is telling me is correct – he may have hit upon the wrong truth or reality.
Simon,
to go back to your original statement, you seem to be saying from the following quote:
“The Christian story provides absolutely no meaning to our existence. As a story analyst by profession, a rule to remove something from the story if it adds nothing. In the Christian story, humanity adds nothing to the story. The Christian god is still glorious, with or without humanity.”
1.”The Christian story provides absolutely no meaning to our existence.”
2.Our existence requires meaning for the Christian story to be true.
3.Therefore the Christian story is false and Mr. Macarthur should keep quiet.
The first thing to say is that unless you can provide a rational and watertight argument that shows that the naturalist worldview provides meaning to our existence, then you have nothing to shout about.
Secondly, please explain to me your justification for your definition of ‘meaning’; i.e. who says that something has to ‘add’ something to a story for it to have meaning?
There are numerous statements in your objections, such that if you cannot demonstrate the truth of the premises that the statements are based on, then your objections fall apart, and shows that you really haven’t thought through your objections very thoroughly.
Simon – I’ve explained how the universe serves the purpose of ascribing glory to God. If you disagree that is fine – but the point has been made. You can blah blah blah all you want about how that doesn’t meet your definition of meaning but who are you? You don’t even understand the implications of your own belief system – how can anyone expect you to speak rationally about the Christian faith? Apparently you believe that our purpose is to serve as batteries for aliens. Would you mind explaining that one?
Simon –
Haven’t commented yet, but have followed the thread closely.
Here’s where I believe you are misguided…
First, your case (summarized from your comments): You demand that Christianity demonstrate that belief in God brings significance and meaning to your existence. By “meaning”, you postulate that your life must be able to “add” something intrinsically or extrinsically measurable to God’s existence. If God merely created you for “decoration”, then God is not truly augmented…therefore, the entire idea of a meaningful purpose in creating you is fallacious. Conclusion: The Christian notion of “God” doesn’t adequately answer the question of life’s meaning.
Now, my case:
If God is the Creator, by objective power and self-existence, then He alone determines the quantifying propositions by which “meaning” is defined and measured. For example, if God created human beings “ex nihilo”, then all other entities, being created, would necessarily find their ultimate purpose in that Creator’s design. In fact, God wouldn’t be compelled to prove the “meaningfulness” of His design, since meaningfulness is intrinsic to the fruit of His creative act. You are correct that Christianity does not say that God, being self-existent and self-sufficient, is intrinsically augmented by anything He creates. But His perfections/attributes would be manifested and magnified IN, TO, and THROUGH everything He creates. And since anything God designs to do is inherently (and perfectly) meaningful by virtue of His aseity, then I would find my greatest significance in manifesting and magnifying His design.
You counter that if God merely created you for “decoration”, then God is not truly augmented…therefore, the entire idea of a meaningful purpose in creating you is fallacious.
Back to the previous argument…If God creates a “decoration” out of nothing, the decoration’s “meaningfulness” and “significance” inhere, not in its ability to augment God, but in its fulfilling God’s intended design. Were the decoration animated, it would express delight in nothing else than to fulfill its purpose, for therein lies its superlative capacity. In other words, ultimate “significance” is realized when the thing created is subsisting in that for which it was created. Any lesser definition of significance automatically assumes another “designer” (in your case, you).
You see, Simon, Christians do not manufacture meaning…we simply state that, for the creature, significance is intrinsic to being brought into existence by a self-existent Creator. How can a previously non-existent entity, upon suddenly being made alive, immediately begin using its newfound, utterly dependent, capacities to question whether its own design is meaningful or significant? Think about it…let’s go through a simple check list of everyone’s previously non-existent attributes and capacities:
1. Reason & Logic
2. Thought
3. Affections
4. Emotions
5. Will
6. Desire
7. Motive
8. Conscience
9. Ruling capacity
10. Moral fabric
11. Five senses
In the Christian worldview, every one of these unsearchable realities of human nature is metaphysically and intrinsically dependent upon He who brought them into existence. It strains incredulity to suggest that Christian’s must demonstrate how we “add” to the Creator in order to “prove” life’s meaning. The creature, in a Christian worldview, DOES NOT DEFINE ANYTHING APART FROM the Creator’s design. That’s why the “potter and clay” analogy is so rich! What it took me all of the above to delineate, the scriptures articulates in a simple, yet piercing manner.
My conclusion: Your atheism is really agnosticism. You, a creature, have lodged challenges against alleged evidences of a Creator, and subsequently have asserted your own “design” for the universe. That makes you the determiner, measurer, and judge of meaning and significance. If you’re right, then you should demand far more than arguments for the existence of the Christian God…you should demand our allegiance, dependence, and submission. If you’re wrong, then in the final analysis you’ve simply rejected the true Creator’s design for you. Consequently, you will not see the true meaning of anything.
That’s what makes the gospel so marvelous. It isn’t a “story” to provide “comfort” to the insignificant mass of humanity. It is the offer of a Savior who redeems the condemned, bringing them into the ultimate design of God. Now that’s meaningful!
Paul M
“Plausible – seeming reasonable or probable (Oxford dictionary). That’s exactly the definition I intended.”
If you think we all popped into existence, the universe, the planets, all the species, at the wave of a god’s magic wand, I do not see how that idea could be defined as “plausible”.
Paul, you said:
“Oh, and by the way, another ‘good’ reason is the scientific methods’ fatally intrinsic flaw of being totally unable to describe truth and reality (and I mean any truth and reality, not just concerning God).”
Now you say:
“I didn’t say that science was of no practical use.”
How can it be of practical use to you if it is “totally unable to describe [any] truth and reality”?
Your two statements simpy do not add up.
Christians aren’t looking for the truth, they are looking for the truth that backs up their belief (which doesn’t exist).
Paul:
“1.”The Christian story provides absolutely no meaning to our existence.”
2. Our existence requires meaning for the Christian story to be true.
3.Therefore the Christian story is false and Mr. Macarthur should keep quiet.”
Paul, I have clearly stated this not about whether a god exists or not. This is about Christians accusing naturalism of providing no meaning, yet covering up the fact that Christianity provides no meaning.
“The first thing to say is that unless you can provide a rational and watertight argument that shows that the naturalist worldview provides meaning to our existence, then you have nothing to shout about.”
When have I ever claimed atheism provides meaning? MacArthur claims it leads to nihilism, implying that Christianity doesn’t. If he’s not claiming Christianity provides meaning either, his article is pretty pointless.
Its the kettle calling the pot ‘black’.
Paul:
“Secondly, please explain to me your justification for your definition of ‘meaning’; i.e. who says that something has to ‘add’ something to a story for it to have meaning?”
Are you admitting that human existence adds nothing, then?
For something to have purpose, it has to add something. Let’s say glory is represented by pots. God opens his pot cupboard and finds he has an infinite number of pots. God is never going to need another pot, no matter what. He is covered for every type of pot you could possibly wish for.
So he creates humans. He creates them so they can make him more pots. Does he need these pots? No. Does he want these pots? Apparently. But the Christian theologian is unable to explain why he wants more pots when he already has as many pots as he’s ever going to need.
The Christian is no better of than the atheist – our existence has no purpose.
Jerry M:
“You can blah blah blah all you want about how that doesn’t meet your definition of meaning but who are you?”
If a Christian uses his human reason to demonstrate why atheism leads to nihilism, I expect him to use the same human reason to explain why Christianity provides a purpose for our existence.
Surely that’s not too much to ask is it?
You and MacArthur are like playground bullys with a big brother to protect them. You get in the first punch and then you go and hide behind your god for protection. “You can’t hit me I’ve got God on my side!”
“Apparently you believe that our purpose is to serve as batteries for aliens. Would you mind explaining that one?”
It’s all explained here:
http://skorohnomis.blogspot.com/2006/07/god-does-not-exist-proof.html
Jerry W:
“Now that’s meaningful!”
Why, because you say so?
Your argument follows this line: I can’t see any real useful purpose for humanity, but presupposing a god exists, he must have had a meaning or we wouldn’t be here.
Much of religious thinking is self-fullfilling. It has meaning because it has meaning.
Huh?
I ask again: if our existence under the Christian god has meaning, what is our purpose?
To have a purpose you have to add or change something. Surely you can see that?
What have we added or changed?
Simon:
“Paul, I have clearly stated this not about whether a god exists or not. This is about Christians accusing naturalism of providing no meaning, yet covering up the fact that Christianity provides no meaning.”
OK Simon. Let’s grant you youre arbitrary definition of meaning. And let’s say that using this definition Christianity has no meaning. So what? Does that make it false?
You say that this thread is not about whether God exists or not, but your comments strongly imply that because Christianity has no meaning to you, this is at least one of the reasons why you do not believe it. Are you a Christian Simon? If not, why not? I’m sure youre answer to this would include the assertion that Christianity has no meaning to you.
Simon:
“If you think we all popped into existence, the universe, the planets, all the species, at the wave of a god’s magic wand, I do not see how that idea could be defined as “plausible”.”
Then give me a more ‘plausible’ alternative.
Simon:
“How can it be of practical use to you if it is “totally unable to describe [any] truth and reality”?”
Because, occasionally, the secular scientific world, in its blind stab in the dark attempts to describe truth, happen upon conclusions that line up with the Christian worldview which is based on Biblical revelation, even though they don’t know or admit this when it occurs – then, science becomes of practical use (by the way, it would do atheists well to learn a little bit of history. They would then find that many of the premises and absolutes that their theories are based on were laid down by Christian scientists of bygone generations, who were only sure of these premises because they were founded in Biblical revelation.
Simon:
“Are you admitting that human existence adds nothing, then?”
Adds nothing to what? If you mean adds nothing to God himself, then yes, human existence adds nothing whatsoever to God himself.
But Christians do have a very important purpose in history and are used by God (used, not necessarily needed). They are the means by which God’s message of salvation is proliferated throughout the world.
C.S. Lewis:
‘The ancient man approached God (or even the gods)as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God is in the dock’ [God in the Dock p. 244]
Joe atheist sits on the judge’s bench. He demands that the accused [God] produce a reason for bringing the universe into existence. God responds that while He was perfectly content before He created the universe – He decided that He would go ahead and create so that the universe could be an arena in which to display His glory. God goes on to describe how much goodness He has shown to man by creating an environment uniquely suitable for human and animal life – complete with the exact mixture of gases including hydrogen and oxygen – creating male and female for the enjoyment of humanity and giving the ability to bring forth children. God also explains how he gave unto man the unique privilege and meaningful responsibility to exercise dominion over the earth.
Joe atheist asks if this is all that God has done? God responds, ‘No – there is more’. God noted that man – when he was given all this bountiful privilege instead of worshiping and serving the Creator chose instead to ignore Him. Men began to kill one another -to lie and to steal from one another. Some chose to live immorally – raping women or forsaking their marriages. In addition – they began to create false gods to worship – gods that suited their own lifestyle. God added however, that in spite of man’s rebellion – He, in His grace had already determined beforehand to save some of these poor creatures out of their sinful state. He said that since His laws had been broken – someone must pay the penalty incurred by these lawbreakers. He accomplished this salvation for man at no small price – but was glad to do so as it demonstrated His love for His creatures.
Joe atheist says, ‘That’s all very nice – but still – is there any meaning to this existence?’
God responds: ‘That’s all the meaning there is.’
Joe atheist renders verdict – ‘Insufficient meaning to this creation’
Joe atheist wakes up
Joe atheist now stands before God
God says, ‘What did you do with the truth I gave you?’
Joe atheist admits that he suppressed the truth
He acknowledges that the creation really did show evidence of having been intelligently designed and couldn’t possibly have been the result of blind forces – but after all – belief in God was rather intrusive and hindered him from living life the way he wanted to.
God asks Joe what He did with the Scriptures?
Joe admits that He spent most of his life denying and fighting against them. He believed like Sartre that life really took on meaning when one could rebel against something of a traditional nature.
God asks Joe what He did with His Son, ‘Jesus Christ’?
Joe responds that – He really hated Jesus – with all His claims to forgive sins and rise from the dead. He wanted nothing to do with Him.
God renders verdict and banishes Joe from the kingdom
Paul M: “let’s say that using this definition Christianity has no meaning. So what? Does that make it false?”
Look at the article. It is an attack on atheism/naturalism, claiming it provides no meaning for our existence. I’m just saying the quack doctor accuses the real doctor of failing to cure the patient, only so he can sell his fake remedy.
“Are you a Christian Simon? If not, why not? I’m sure youre answer to this would include the assertion that Christianity has no meaning to you.”
Absolutely. There are a thousand reasons why Christianity is a fairytale. But this debate isn’t about existence. If we get into why I’m 100% atheist, whereas you’re only 99% atheist (I reject all gods, you reject one less) this debate would spiral out of control.
“Then give me a more ‘plausible’ alternative.”
Why should I? I’m not the one saying I have the answer. I think your answer is less plausible than: *somthing* made the universe. Just off the top of my head: It could have been a machine existing in another dimension, controlled by an alien scientist doing experiments in universe creation. He’s been messing about with variables, trying to get a universe which had all the right ingredients for life to evolve. Finally, he has got the conditions right and here we are.
We wouldn’t know about the failed universe-creating experiments. We’re only aware of this one – as logic would suggest.
The advatage my theory has over yours is I don’t have the embarrassing problem of explaining away things like evolution.
“Because, occasionally, the secular scientific world, in its blind stab in the dark attempts to describe truth, happen upon conclusions that line up with the Christian worldview which is based on Biblical revelation…”
Are you suggesting flying men to the moon was “blind stab in the dark”?
You’re joking aren’t you?
Paul M:
“They are the means by which God’s message of salvation is proliferated throughout the world.”
But what is the ultimate purpose of humanity. Am I to look forward to an infinite existence without any purpose? Sounds like hell to me.
Jerry, who in this John MacArthur article is the accused, would you say?
Simon,
‘who in this John MacArthur Article is the accused, would you say?’
Carl Sagan – who attacked Christianity at every turn. See especially his ‘The Demon Haunted World’.
It seems to me that in the eyes of christians, ’spiritual’ is synonymous with ‘good’ and ‘meaningful’.
Well, I have news for you: both ‘good’ and ‘meaning’ (and for that matter ’spirituality’) are all constructions of the human mind, not inherent in the universe.
What is it about Carl Sagan’s view that scares you? That he might be right? All he’s really saying is that our only hope is ourselves, not some ‘god’ whose existence cannot be proven either way.
“Underlying all he taught was the firm conviction that everything in the universe has a natural cause and a natural explanation. That belief—a matter of faith, not a truly scientific observation—governed and shaped every one of his theories about the universe.”
Um, what exactly do you think led him to the firm convictions that he held? Surely not the fact that he was a renowned scientist and knew more about the mechanics of the universe than you ever will? Your play on the word ‘faith’ is shallow. Science is consistent, repeatable and predictable, unlike religion. The laws of science are the same for all participants. When something has these properties, a person is quite justified in having ‘faith’ in it. By contrast, and by the above criteria for faith, absolutely no-one with any semblance of a thought should have any ‘faith’ in religion.
Funny that christians are happy to benefit from the prolonged life that modern medical *science* offers them, and the improved quality of life that modern industrial *science* offers them. If science does not warrant any ‘faith’, why don’t you all throw out and condemn your TVs, SUVs and refrigerators? No, I didn’t think you would.
Simon –
First, I did give you a plausible explanation as to why life would have “meaning” in a Christian worldview. Just because I presuppose God and you presuppose no God, doesn’t mean I didn’t offer you a clear reason for significance. My only task was to offer an explanation for meaning.
Second, I never explicitly or implicitly reasoned that “I can’t see any real purpose for humanity, but presupposing a god exists, he must have had a meaning or we wouldn’t be here”. You interpolated these thoughts out of thin air.
What I DID reason, is that I presuppose God, and therefore His purpose in creating is all the meaning I need. You didn’t originally ask me to prove whether God exists, only that the Christian worldview is a plausible explanation as to humanity’s significance.
Third, you assert (as I already indicated in my first comment) that in order for Christianity to adequately establish human significance, the system would have to demonstrate that one has added to or changed God in some way. This is classic apriori apologetics. You have never concretely established “why” your measure of what is “meaningful existence” should hold sway. You’ve simply stated it as fact and then used it to dismantle the notion of a supreme being. The fact is, your worldview cannot empirically establish what constitutes meaning, so you’re left with out-shouting your opponents definition while calling your axiomatic.
Moreover, in your response to my original comment, you altered your definition of “meaning”, substituting the idea of “adding to or changing God” with the following: “To have purpose you have to add or change something.”
Nice try, but there is a huge difference between saying that human significance and purpose is dependent upon me changing God…and me changing “something”. I won’t even grant that your “new” definition is correct, because you’ve not demonstrated how it is axiomatic for true purpose to derive from being able to “change something”. Neither will I grant that an all-sufficient, self-existent God is not “purposefully involved and affected” by that which He creates. He indeed may be impassible so far as aseity is concerned, but what if He is also personally, intimately, and self-determinatively engaged and affected by everything He wills in and through His creation? Does this not constitute “meaning”?
Jerry Wragg – Very meaningfully spoken!
Jerry W:
“…but what if He is also personally, intimately, and self-determinatively engaged and affected by everything He wills in and through His creation? Does this not constitute “meaning”?”
The irony being I’m not sure the first sentence makes a great deal of sense.
I’ll have a stab at translating what you said:
What if your god is personally, intimately, freely engaged [busy doing] and…
[From Cambridge Dictionary:
"affect (INFLUENCE)
verb [T]
to have an influence on someone or something, or to cause them to change”]
…changed by everything he wills in…
[Sorry, don't understand "wills in". Doesn't make any grammatical sense whatsoever.]
…and through his creation.
[What the...?]
Sorry, I just can’t make sense of your sentence. So, no, it doesn’t provide grammatical meaning, let alone philosophical.
Perhaps I’m just being stupid. Could you have another stab?
Sure…
Reading back over my sentence, I can see where the grammatical confusion arose.
The antecedent of the prepositions “in” and “through” is the gerund “affected”, rather than “wills”.
What I meant to say was that in classic theism, God, being both transcendent and immanent, is therefore simultaneously impassible and intimately involved. In other words, it would be incorrect to think of God as a mutable being, changing upon every turn of His creation. But it is equally wrong to imagine that He isn’t purposefully and intimately engaged with all that He has brought into existence.
Back to your challenges about “meaning”, I believe that God (let’s assume for the moment that He exists) did, by divine fiat, create a universe which cannot augment His perfections or being. However, He did not create in indifference as though He couldn’t be intimately involved with or affected by it in profoundly meaningful ways. Consequently, when mankind (God’s supreme creation) enjoys the wonder of relationship with His Creator, it is the highest significance possible.
So…all I’m saying is that God, in a Christian worldview, does not have to be augmented in order for man to have meaning. The Creator (who would be the ultimate source of all meaning and significance) need only determine to enjoy rich fellowship with His creatures in order to bless them with superlative meaningfulness. And, from a Christian perspective, I believe that the greatest expression of God’s desire to be in that relationship was His becoming a man in the person of Jesus Christ (and that, even after man had rejected the relationship the first time [Adam]), to extend forgiveness and restore the relationship. Without forgiveness, life is indeed meaningless.
Thanks for letting me clarify…
Simon,
Could you please demonstrate how your definition of meaning is verifiable and objectively true? You have contended that meaning is synonymous with “adding,” but who gets to determine what is an addition and what is a “subtraction”? Is it you or me or someone else? I would contend that unless there is a transcendent arbiter of truth, the strongest person gets to determine what is “meaning.” That’s sure a bummer for the weak or the minorities.
Jerry W,
all you’re really saying is that our purpose is to please your god and it would be ungrateful to ask awkward questions beyond that.
Scott,
Let’s say you get a job working for a multi-millionaire. He employs you to go through his garbage and separate it into different groups: tins, vegetable waste, bones etc… When I’m done, he gathers it all up and throws into a big garbage bin and it all gets mixed up again. Why do you do it? Because he says he wants you to, he says it pleases him and he says he will get angry if you don’t do it.
Would there be a meaning to your job? Would you consider that job worthwhile? Wouldn’t you feel frustrated and depressed everytime you saw your painstakingly organised garbage mixed up again. You might be happy with the pay, but as far as job satisfaction goes, it would surely be zero.
You might just be happy to make your employer happy, but that wouldn’t provide your job with any meaning. Until you found out why he wanted you to sort the garbage only for him to mix it up again, your job would be meaningless.
Not only ungrateful…but meaningless.
My Previous comment was a response to Simon…
I can empathize with your analogy, and if I was in that situation, I would feel discouraged, but why? Who or what ever told me to feel this way? Where does that feeling of pointlessness come from? You still haven’t shown how your analogy defends your definition of meaning.
The feeling of pointlessness comes from there being no point to your existence – as demonstrated above.
Religion is for human comfort, not meaning.
Simon,
I clearly understand your premise that religion only provides comfort. You have still failed to demonstrate what makes your standard of meaning defensible. You attack a definition of God, but that is not the God that is revealed in the Bible.
As Christians, we appeal to a definition of truth and meaning as found in the God of the Bible revealed ultimately in the person of Jesus. He is our transcendent objective standard. You must try to build your case without a reference to our story or our God because you are a naturalist. Unfortunately, naturalism must presuppose an objective standard based somewhere outside of the human observer to make any sense at all. Your very definition of meaning and comfort presupposes values that are universal, but naturalism is unable to explain this phenomenon within its own worldview.