(May 25, 2018 at 5:14 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I know you indicated that you weren't making an argument, Steve, but since one broke out anyway, I thought I'd add my two cents. It seems that atheists and theists are talking about two different kinds of meaning. There is the meaning which is experienced in the moment as a result of participating in an event or process which they find meaningful. Winning a sporting event can be experienced as meaningful and will still have been meaningful whether anyone remembers or reflects upon that moment ever again. Similarly for such things as raising a child or getting an education or discovering something important. That type of meaning exists in the present and is not erased by what comes after. The theists seem to want to concentrate on the type of meaning associated with remembrance and identity. This is a different kind of meaning than the first and its absence doesn't invalidate the first, despite theists' claim to the contrary. This type of meaning comes in a variety of forms, from the meaning one attaches to being a member of a family to the meaning one attaches to the events of one's history. A theme, however, is appearing here, and it relates to your comment about values, purpose, and their relation to a person.
In some sense you may be right that meaning ultimately relates to a person. However, I would argue that meaning derives not from a relationship toward any person, but specifically a relationship towards the self. All other forms of meaning are derivative. A person must first embrace a meaning as one's own, and only secondarily do other things or persons obtain meaning from that initial commitment. We can see the failure of the attempt to derive meaning through an external third party in examples such as the student who is pressured into a college career by one's parents, despite not being committed to the endeavor oneself, leaving one feeling that the exercise is ultimately pointless and empty. A similar example occurs whenever parents try to live vicariously through the lives of their children by involving them in sports or learning a musical instrument or whatever. Many times the child ends up feeling that the pursuit and their participation in it is empty and meaningless. A theist may, as they choose, find it valuable having a God living vicariously through them by forcing them through a dreary theater dominated by obsession with sin and fruits promised but never obtained, but I do not care for it personally. Regardless, at best, the theist is overplaying their hand by claiming that the atheist's life is meaningless. While an atheist lives, they are bathed in meaning to the same extant that the theist is. The theist has no advantage there. The theist simply wants to count their chickens before they are hatched, crow about an eternal life that may not exist, and derive meaning from dancing to the tune of an imaginary piper.
As an addendum, I find it a dubious proposition that deriving one's meaning by relating it to a transcendent object, whether God or something else, ultimately makes a person's experience of life more meaningful than if one doesn't. This appears to be a form of Pascal's wager in which you essentially assert that you've made a better deal than the atheist by hitching your wagon to God. Not only is it unclear how that actually alters your day to day experience of meaning, it seems to be a grasping for something one doesn't actually possess. Beyond that, many things can fill the role of the transcendent in a person's life. God isn't the only option. Living a good life, being virtuous, most things related to the good have an element of the transcendent in them, whether one links that up to God or not. Even simple things like appreciation of art or the passing of the seasons can yield a sense of transcendent meaning. The Japanese have the aesthetic of wabi sabi which is about as transcendent as one can get. The Buddhist and Hindu have the unending struggle against samsara. And so on. Theists don't have a monopoly on transcendent meaning.
First, thanks for you thoughtful answer.
I agree, I think there are two different kinds of meaning. I don't think we disagree very much on what meaning people can get out of life by pursuing goals, being content, having enriching experiences, etc. That is certainly one kind of meaning available to anyone. This is clearly subjective meaning.
The second kind of meaning (the one I have tried to articulate) is not having God live through you vicariously and get some sense of fulfillment through that. It is the meaning that comes with a purpose for which you exist. For example, the purpose of 50 pieces of beautifully carved and polished wood assembled in such a way might be a chair. Now you have a new property of "chairness" because the finished product has a purpose--comfortable sitting. The word "chair" has a meaning that conveys more than something you sit on (you can sit on a stump). In a similar way, Christians believe we were made for a purpose. Therefore the word "human" has more meaning in it than a godless worldview where there was no intended purpose--just a fortuitous accident.
While the chair example is useful, the analogy is incomplete. Being made for a purpose (like a chair) is one level. The content of the phrase "made in the image of God" carries much further meaning. Consider this list:
1. Relational
2. Rational
3. Moral agents
4. Capable of complex emotions
5. Appreciative of aesthetics
Under a godless worldview, these things are accidental properties of humans and it makes no sense to ask "why this. Under a Christian worldview, these things are a result of being made in the image of God. The question "why this" makes sense: because God is interested in having a relationship with rational beings capable of living a full, well-lived, morally upright, capable of love, and awed by the natural beauty of the universe he made for this purpose alone. It is this distinction between the two worldviews that I am trying to point out.
If you want to use different words, fine. You cannot escape the obvious comparison and its conclusion: There is not existential purpose/meaning to "human-ness" in a godless worldview. There is substantial existential purpose/meaning in a Christian worldview.
