Zilch: The Final Score In Atheism

Sometimes a series of comments on a blog post diverts far from the original point of the post. I confess that I sometimes (often?) help this because I enjoy philosophical discussions that are usually tangential to the point of a post. One such instance occurred between Zilch and me on this post which was originally about Steve’s response to Avalos on the Legend of Sargon.

I had written a response this weekend to Zilch’s last comment, but decided not to post it since the original post has dropped off into blog purgatory (i.e. no longer on the main page) and because we had moved on to other topics, but because Zilch has been one of the few atheists who doesn’t resort to only bombastic drivel and because he asked me to respond to his last post I will post my response here. I encourage readers who are interested to click the above referenced link and read through our discussion up to this point before responding.

Zilch wrote:

What you seem to be saying- and this seems to be a common position among Christians- is that my life as an atheist is meaningless because it only lasts a certain amount of time, and then I die. Is this a fair appraisal?

That’s incomplete. Instead, more accurately, what I am saying is: Within atheism, life is meaningless because the only thing that can give it meaning is the individuals who live their lives, and when they die all their meaning vanishes with them.

This differs from Christianity because for the Christian meaning in life does not come from our subjective assignment of meaning to it, but from God’s assigning meaning to it. While our lives are short and temporal, God is eternal. As such, our lives (even atheists’ lives) have meaning in God’s plan, and this meaning transcends the lives of human beings. And this is the key difference that I was seeking to make. Under Christianity, meaning in life is objective (for us); under atheism, it is subjective (for us). Under either position, once the subject passes away, there is no longer any meaning left. The difference is that for the Christian God (the subject) will never pass away, and His immutability guarantees He will never change His mind on the value of our lives either.

As a result, holding to meaning and value in our lives is a consistent factor for Christians. It is not so for atheists, however. In other words, saying that our lives are meaningful requires one to adapt a view like the Christian’s view; it is not possible to state this under atheism.

Zilch wrote:

One, you are assuming the truth of your position in positing how my position must be for me. An atheist who somehow believed that an afterlife existed, but that he was missing out because of his atheism, might feel this way; but since most atheists don't believe in an afterlife, this is not how we look at it. This time on Earth is the time we have, for better or for worse: the fact that believers are looking forward to more doesn't make us feel that what we have is meaningless in comparison, because we don't believe there is anything more.

Hopefully you can see that I was not assuming the truth of Christianity and positing from it how atheism must be with my above clarification of the point I was making. Indeed, whether there is an afterlife or not is ultimately irrelevant to my position that Christianity gives life meaning while atheism cannot do so. In Christianity, meaning is based on God, not on our lives or our afterlives.

Furthermore, Zilch phrased his argument in relative terms. That is: “the fact that believers are looking forward to more doesn’t make us feel that what we have is meaningless in comparison” (italics mine). But what is at issue is not the comparison between atheism and Christianity here, but whether atheism can—of itself—hold the grounds to meaning in life. And here we see that Zilch acknowledges: “This time on Earth is the time we have, for better or worse." More importantly than that, all the meaning that we can possibly have in our lives (as atheists) is just for “the time we have.” That meaning cannot extend beyond our subjective will, our desire to create meaning. When we die, that desire is gone. Our meaning is gone. There is no purpose for our life beyond the purpose we say is there.

To put it another way, the universe has no meaning, no purpose, no value in and of itself. It is therefore left for us to arbitrarily decree that it is really there (but if we are decreeing something there that really isn’t there, then we are deluded). Our decree is only as good as we are. We come from nothing and we will pass into nothing. Our decrees do not last beyond our own scope. Therefore, our decrees are dust in the wind. No matter how much we wish that the universe was meaningful, it will never conform to our wishes. It will remain as it is. Our job (as proper atheists, mind you) ought to be to embrace reality and avoid superstition. And that requires us to reject meaning as a psychological prop.

Zilch said:

Two: while it's true that some atheists find the shortness of our lives grounds for declaring that everything is meaningless (J.P. Sartre comes to mind), most of us don't.

Actually, it is not the shortness of our lives that creates the meaninglessness (per se), but rather it is the fact that that which gives our lives meaning (our subjective will) is not eternal. The shortness of life is only relevant because when we die, so too dies what gives our life meaning. Our lives could be increased tenfold, or a hundredfold, or any finite number and you will not escape the meaninglessness of it all. When you die, there is nothing left to make your life meaningful. Nor is there anything left to have made your past life meaningful either (example: is Caesar’s life meaningful today? How much less so the life of a commoner in the slums of Rome!)

Zilch said:

In fact, for me and many others, it is the awareness that we are only here briefly that makes every day precious and full of meaning.

Except that, once again, it is only precious and meaningful in a subjective sense; and once you die, it is no longer precious or meaningful. Furthermore, since you no longer exist, it never was meaningful or precious. Indeed, from the cosmic time scale, you’re just a blip on the screen. You came from nothing and you’ll continue into nothing. In the meantime, what you accomplish boils down to nothing.

Zilch said:

Since we don't believe in a God who is the absolute source of meaning, we must find our own meanings.

The problem is not that you must “find” your own meaning, but rather that the atheist must manufacture meaning out of meaninglessness. He must manufacture purpose out of that which has no purpose. He must manufacture value out of that which has no value. It is not like these things exist in the universe waiting to be discovered. Not at all. In atheism, they do not exist at all. Not until someone wills them into existence. And even then, they can only be subjectively held.

And it is at this point that the atheist, under the presuppositions of atheism, is no longer viewing the universe objectively at all. He has subjectively decided to infuse into the universe that which is not there. He has deluded himself. And at this point, his contention with theists becomes bitterly ironic. “Theists are deluded into thinking God exists so they can have some meaning in their life” the atheist will claim, all the while ignoring the fact that he has deluded himself into thinking his life has meaning based on his sheer will alone. At best, the atheist can be on no better rational ground than the theist when it comes to delusional behavior regarding meaning!

Zilch said:

In fact, the idea held by many fundamentalists of several religions, that our earthly sojourn is meaningless in comparison to the afterlife, or only meaningful insofar as it is a test that must be passed, is a great source of danger to the planet.

Unfortunately, atheism does not allow an atheist to make this claim. There is no “danger” to the planet because the only way for there to be danger would be if there was something of value to be lost. But the universe came from nothing and will return to nothing--no matter what you do. There is no value in the universe except that which we pretend is there. So the danger is not to the planet, but rather to what Zilch wishes the planet to be like. And it is all good and well for Zilch to have desires about what the planet should be like, but his atheism gives him no grounds for stating that his views are better or worse than those of the fundamentalist; and indeed, if the fundamentalist views atheism as a danger to the planet, then whose word do we take? We’ve already seen that under atheism, both religious meaning and non-religious meaning are devoid of objective correlation to the universe. This extends to values as well. There is no inherent value in anything in the universe. What do we have left?

This brings me back to something Zilch said at the beginning of his response:

I am interested in peaceful coexistence on our planet; and since it looks like neither religion nor atheism is going away any time in the near future, I do what I can to find common ground. This includes bringing my satanic, er, I mean secular humanistic viewpoint to the table, as a small contribution towards making the world a better place for my children. After all, people of all beliefs are capable of doing great good or great evil.

Unfortunately, there is no way that Zilch can make “the world a better place” for his, or anyone else’s, children. In order to use the term “better” he would have to be able to substantiate how the universe ought to be, which he cannot do (there is no “oughtness” apart from purpose). Likewise, he cannot label any actions of people as “good” or “evil” either. Not unless all these terms are simply subjective declarations. And if that’s all they are, they lose any bit of force they had, for why should Zilch’s subjective whims be the rule we go by? But more importantly, the demise of the Earth is inevitable; how we get there is ultimately unimportant. After all, the final score is the same regardless of how the game is played. There is no point in keeping track of it.