Hey, just thought I would make my first post a memorable one and rattle off something interesting. Here are some questions leveled from a viewpoint of moralistic theism towards amoralistic atheism. Before reading it, keep in mind that when I chide whoever first wrote the questions for being ambiguous or poorly phrased, I’m not trying to attack people who might hold the opinions themselves. I’m actually technically an agnostic, but as I think that the divine existing is less likely than it not, I think for the purposes of the questionare, I’m effectively an atheist. (As a note, I yoinked the questions from http://headdoctor.informe.com/index.php.)
1. “If all of life is meaningless, and ultimately absurd , why bother to march straight forward, why stand in the queue as though life as a whole makes sense?” —Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There
To say that there is no meaning but the meaning we create for ourselves is not the same as saying that there is no meaning at all. There is meaning in my life in terms of what I myself have chosen to give meaning. That the meaning is not universal does not lessen its worth or value to me.
2. If everyone completely passes out of existence when they die, what ultimate meaning has life? Even if a man’s life is important because of his influence on others or by his effect on the course of history, of what ultimate significance is that if there is no immortality and all other lives, events, and even history itself is ultimately meaningless?
The first part of the question is essentially a rehash of the first question. My life ultimately has only the meaning I give to it (and to others the meaning that they give to it). That the meanings will eventually be lost entirely does not lessen them. The second part of the question is deceptive in that “ultimately” is a situation that is ill defined. If by “ultimately,” they mean at the heat death of the universe, I would say that (assuming that heat death takes place, as opposed to a big crunch) that there will be no one left to ascribe meaning, and there there will be none. That being said, I’m not sure why this should be significant to me.
3. Suppose the universe had never existed. Apart form God, what ultimate difference would that make?
The difference would be exactly the sum of all things that have do and will exist in the history of the universe from beginning to end. Again, the word “ultimately” has a nebulous meaning here. I’m not sure how to interpret it, but even if they mean a difference at the heat death of the universe (again, assuming that it happens), the universe would be quite different. Quantum physics tells us that information cannot ever be lost, so it follows that the entire history of the universe will be encoded in the decaying particles that used to be you, me and everything else. Whether or not there is meaning to be ascribed to it, it’s quite a bit of “ultimate difference.”
4. In a universe without God or immortality, how is mankind ultimately different from a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs?
“Ultimately.” I’m really getting to dislike that word. In any event, it’s not the only ill defined word here. “Different” is difficult to interpret as well. I think I can answer the question by posing a counter question. If you considered a pig or mosquito that had a soul, how would it ultimately be any different than a human being? I think that when the answer becomes apparent fairly quickly: “Simply because you make one aspect of a creature more like that of another (here, saying that a human, like a mosquito or pig, has no soul) does not mean that the first creature becomes indistinguishable from the second.”
5. What viable basis exists for justice or law if man is nothing but a sophisticated, programmed machine?
We enjoy living in a world which has rules that protect our wellbeing. Upholding these rules in relation to others supports a system of rules which does this. Furthermore, we are an instinctually empathic species. We (on the whole, not universally) prefer less suffering as opposed to more.
6. Why does research, discovery, diplomacy, art, music, sacrifice, compassion, feelings of love, or affectionate and caring relationships mean anything if it all ultimately comes to naught anyway?
This is remarkably similar to questions 1 and 2. I’ve already explained that meaning can be personal as opposed to universal, but there’s a bit more to add. This question is based on the assumption that there must be meaning. I see nothing that indicates that meaning must be present. I would go so far that it is only possible for there to be meaning if there is someone there to create it. The question also uses the phrase “coming to naught.” This implies that the underlying philosophy is one that looks for definition of meaning not in the action of research, discovery, love, etc., but the final outcome. While it’s a person’s own prerogative as to how they ascribe meaning in their own lives, I feel that this is wasting much of what can be taken from the things mentioned. Again, “ultimately” is used without a clear meaning.
7.Without absolute morals, what ultimate difference is there between Saddam Hussein and Billy Graham?
This one is a rehash of the first question, the fourth and the fifth. To say that neither Saddam Hussein nor Billy Graham are subject to a set of universal laws is not to say that they are ethically equal, even in terms of the arbitrary ethics imposed by men (to say nothing of the other, more mundane differences). The underlying question here is “Without ultimate good and ultimate evil, how do we know the difference between right and wrong?” I would answer that while there is no ultimate difference between right and wrong, there are rules that make for a society we tend to find more amicable. The rule “You can’t kill” might take away from us the ability to kill without consequence (whatever our motivations), but it also protects us from being killed. Because we don’t want to be killed, we accept the rule. Moreover, being empathic creatures, we enjoy the benefits of people that we care for not being killed. No universal right or wrong is necessary for rules that create an environment that we prefer to others. “Ultimately.”
8. If there is no immortality, why shouldn’t all things be permitted?(Dostoyevsky)
This question is identical to others answered so far in all but semantics.
9. If morality is only a relative social construct, on what basis could or should anyone ever move to interfere with cultures that practice apartheid, female circumcision, cannibalism, or ethnic cleansing?
This is slightly different from the last two questions. I’ve explained laws that function without the necessity of morality, and this asks how we can justify interference with other cultures’ (and implicitly, their laws) without morality. Firstly this forgets that without morality, justification is unnecessary. Secondly, it overlooks the empathic nature I’ve mentioned a number of times. We as a species empathize with others. We wish to allay suffering in others, as we hope that others would allay suffering in ourselves. While the selfish man argument is easy to make, I think it is undeniable that we instinctually feel for others that suffer.
10. If there is no God, on what basis is there any meaning or hope for fairness, comfort, or better times?
This is answered well by preceding speculations on the basis for law. It’s not really different from… about half the other questions asked.
11. Without a personal Creator-God, how are you anything other than the coincidental, purposeless miscarriage of nature, spinning round and round on a lonely planet in the blackness of space for just a little while before you and all memory of your futile, pointless, meaningless life finally blinks out forever in the endless darkness?
This is an unabashed appeal to consequences. “If there is no meaning, then why is everything not horrible and sucky and bad?” I’ve already said that I feel we are able to make our own meaning. That being said, even if I’m wrong, so what? My ego isn’t so big that I feel the universe needs to cater to me in such a way that my existence leaves a massive signature across the sky. If I die and no one remembers me, that’s ok. It’s not the end of the world. And even if it is the end of the world, that’s ok too. The universe is very big while we are very small, and I am able to be happy even realizing this. Have a sense of perspective.