I am not a big fan of Dawkins simply because I think there are better thinkers than he in the field i.e. Sam Harris. However, I have read some of his work.
You may also enjoy watching Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures on the YouTubes. He approaches the stories in the Bible (Genesis thus far) from a psychological/evolutionary/biological perspective, and while not a Christian, he is not willing to outright dismiss metaphysical explanations. I am not sure where he would fall on Dawkins scale.
If you were to take Peterson's ideas and whirl them around with C. S. Lewis et. al. I suspect you could come to some acceptable doctrinal conclusions that would do no damage to biblical truth.
Have you listened to Peterson on Harris’ podcast? He was actually on twice. I only heard the second one. (Heard the first was a bit difficult.) Seems like an interesting guy, but I’d say that I tended to appreciate Harris’ perspective more.
I heard the same thing. I have not watched it yet, but I will be. At the end of the day as a Christian Theist I find both of their conclusions untenable at the end of the day for the reason that I believe they have to construct ultimate meaning from nothing which is not actually ultimate meaning, but merely temporal illusory “meaning” which is the same as saying no meaning.
Still, I like to engage with their perspectives in order to learn from them so that I may look for problems in my worldview, and at the same time bolster it in or to provide better apologetics for it.
I’d have to ask what it is you mean when you use the word “meaning”. Surely “nothing” has no meaning. But life and existence are not “ nothing”.
Looking back at what you wrote, I see that you referred to “ultimate meaning”. I’ve never really understood that view - that without God (or something like it) to supply meaning, there is no meaning left of any consequence. But we all supply the meaning of our lives.
Meaning, when you come down to it, is “values”. And I think it’s both possible and necessary to have values in a world without God.
I have been in circles with folks about this before. At the end of the day it usually ends as an agree to disagree situation. That being said, I have never been able to wrap my mind around the idea that it is possible and necessary to have values in a universe without a Creator. It seems disingenuous to me.
Without something more concrete to base epistemology on than energy/matter, said epistemology is in itself meaningless and cannot be "known"...hell, the word epistemology is meaningless.
By "in the end" I mean exactly that. When the universe is cold and dead (or whichever version of the probable outcomes comes to fruition) these keys I am pressing have no more "meaning" than if I rape children or give billions of dollars and countless hours of time to orphans and widows.
We can play a game in which the rules we make up say that our constructs and actions have meaning because they affect us in our current time (along with other constructed illusory rules...like time, definitions of words...and words themselves etc.), but they are nothing more than determined (or even chance if you prefer) organizations of energy/matter that will cease, and again, are ultimately meaningless and therefore currently meaningless in any real sense.
It seems much more honest to admit this in the face of an apathetic universe, and further admit that we would rather not shoot ourselves (for some reason we cannot explain) so we choose to play the game (whatever choice is).
"...we supply the meaning of our lives" I have decided the meaning of my life is to punch you in the face and defecate on sidewalks. Who are you to determine that this is not "true" or what "true" means. Once "meaning" and "necessary" and "values" come into the conversation it becomes problematic to the point of being untenable in my estimation. These words cannot even have a meaning without an outside "Form" if you will.
I think Francis Schaeffer's ideas about The Line of Despair trace some of the consequences of atheism and its resulting philosophies quite well. I posted an old blog post with an image created by a prof of mine based on Schaeffer's Line of Despair. It is NOT in depth and thus reading Schaeffer is needed, but it gives the gist.
The bottom line is that human beings are not comfortable with the conclusion that there is no meaning without a preexisting source so they will play a game rather than admit to a meaningless life lived for no reason or a bullet to the head...especially if they have children or a spouse they "love"...whatever the hell that means!
Dammit, this would have been a good post :)
"When the universe is cold and dead (or whichever version of the probable outcomes comes to fruition) these keys I am pressing have no more "meaning" than if I rape children or give billions of dollars and countless hours of time to orphans and widows."
Never in my life, when considering a choice of how to act, have I weighed this choice against the possibility or impossibility of a cold dead universe. I do not see why, if the universe will end in 15 trillion years, this should have any effect on whether or not I murder or help orphans.
"The bottom line is that human beings are not comfortable with the conclusion that there is no meaning without a preexisting source..."
I don't disagree that this idea makes people uncomfortable; and it's certainly true that making a choice on values, rather than to have them handed to you by an omniscient god, is the harder thing. This does not, however, mean it's impossible; nor does it mean that the easier thing is therefore true.
"Without something more concrete to base epistemology on than energy/matter, said epistemology is in itself meaningless"
Then again, I can't think of anything more "concrete" than a materialistically determined universe; and the posit of an immaterial, infinite god is the least concrete thing possible to the imagination. :) Epistemology simply means the study of knowledge. I see no reason that a god concept is necessary to make such a study.
When someone asks, "What is the meaning of life?" I am befuddled by this question. Not because I do not know the answer, but because the question seems beside the point. You are the meaning of your life. All values follow from that. Does that mean you should rape and murder people? Well, no. Because in doing so, you jeopardize your life - you are an individual who is part of a group of individuals. If you would have respect and safety, you must grant that to those around you.
The concept of a god can just as easily be used to justify and demand murder and genocide. See the Old Testament.
Anyway, that's all I've got for now. :)
This seems to be a statement that says, "meaning is meaningless because it is subject". It leads to a situation wherein there are some "objective" things, but what they mean is subjective which is the same as saying they are meaningless and therefore not truly objective.
It does in fact mean that it is impossible to have objectively true values. If then one's values are not objectively true, but rather subjective constructs of complex energy/matter machines, they can be changed as needed or even as desired.
I believe you are misunderstanding my use of the word concrete. By this I mean unchangeable. That is to say that there is an objective "ought". The universe is apathetic to our desire to survive or not survive. It alone can provide no basis for objectively true moral values that stand alone despite the current circumstances.
This is an extremely limited definition of epistemology. Part of this study is "how do we know that we can know". Even arguing this position from a purely atheistic perspective is problematic. Make no mistake, both the atheist and the theist simply cannot leave the starting line without certain presuppositions which are ultimately empirically unprovable. The questions that arise after these presuppositions are also important, and I would argue that we are actually discussing one of those "after" questions now.
This may be the most telling comment you have made. What if I would rather NOT have respect and safety? For the atheist values and morals are subjective. They are made up based on a presupposition that life has meaning because there is life which is itself unprovable. There will not always be life from an atheistic view of the cosmos. This means at some point even this made up meaning will cease to exist. This of course means it is temporal and ultimately it has no lasting value whatsoever. This leads us back to the beginning of the circle. You can choose to play the game (existentialism) in order to avoid the reality (nihilism), but it is indeed illusory, empty, and ultimately meaningless.
Let us assume you are correct and there is no God. When the universe is cold and dead (regardless of if you want to base your values on the fact that it will be) what will the meaning of this conversation be? What will the meaning of your life be? What will the meaning of the human race, or the Earth, or the cold dead universe for that matter be? There will be none.
Let us assume I am correct and there is a God. In that case all the questions above will have an answer. It will not have been some made up game of values, morals, and meaning brought on by a certain arrangement of energy and matter that served no purpose.
I am not particularly well educated, well read, or intelligent so there is not a lot more I can add.
Again, I really have no idea why you think our present conversation will have no meaning because at some time in the future all life may cease. Perhaps this will help explain:
I think we need to agree on what is meant by “meaning” in this context. For me - and I think for you in everything you’ve been saying – meaning means value. Your main point seems to be that you want to have objective values, and you’re saying that someone in my position without a god is left with subjective values. Let me know if I have any of that wrong.
My argument has been that value itself is subjective by definition. Not necessarily that values will change from subject to subject; but that a subject is necessary for value to be experienced. To fall back on one of your examples: values would not, and could not, exist in a universe without consciousness.
Ultimately, I believe in a hierarchy of values. This means that the majority of values can be broken down or reduced to one basic value – we call it life, or happiness, or satisfaction, or whatever. Defining that isn’t necessary at this point. My point is – that ultimate value is subjective, in that it is experienced by a subject, and one can technically choose to disregard it. This ultimate value is an end.
Ends are subjective. Means are objective. Example:
I wish to live. I wish to be in good health. In order to achieve this end, I choose to drink a glass of arsenic. Unfortunately, this arsenic kills me. This means could not achieve my end because the means had objective consequences. This is why moral relativism does not work – even in a world without a god. We can disagree on which are the moral poisons, and which are the moral salves; but ultimately experience and consequences win out.
As to objective values created by a god, I’m sorry, but this is no different from a world without a god. Example:
God says you may not eat the left rear leg of a frog, otherwise you will be condemned to hell. Okay, a pretty clear instruction. Don’t eat rear left frog legs. He’s god, so no one can have a different opinion. Therefore, it’s an objective value, right? No. At least not in a way that conflicts with my explanation above. Here’s why: you as a subject want to “live” – and in the extended god narrative, your soul will continue to live for eternity after you die – so you want to live in the good place rather than the bad place. THAT is your value. Refusing to eat left rear frog legs is your objective MEANS of achieving your subjective end.
God does not supply objective values. The concept of god, and all its rules, only supplies what seems to be objective means to the ultimate subjective value: eternal bliss.
(Now I'm thinking this too could be its own post here... heh.)
We will probably continue to go in circles... meaning is the subjective glue we use to fill in the spaces between the objective (I just made that up). What I mean is that meaning assumes a perspective that creates/determines the meaning... I’m typing on my iPad right now, and I feel very restricted. 😃 I’ll respond further once I have the freedom of my keyboard.
I've been enjoying Peterson's perspective and different angle on things. Just another angle to approach the complexities from without getting to dogmatic.