Do We Need an Ultimate Purpose?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Follow up to: Is Life An Accident?
William Lane Craig, perhaps the most famous Christian philosopher and theologian, has famously defended the thesis “Without God, nothing we do matters.”
But what is Craig’s argument saying? Clearly we can be happy without needing a belief in God; we can actually be happier than some of our fellow Christians. Clearly we can care about others without a belief in God; we can actually be more caring and compassionate than some of our fellow Christians. We can also feel imbued with purpose without a belief in God; again, even more so than some of our fellow Christians.
What more do we need? It sounds like Craig’s argument doesn’t add up at all. What exactly is Craig getting at? It turns out that Craig is talking about something called an ultimate purpose, which is different from those regular purposes us atheists have to be content with. Craig explains as follows:
I’ve tried to analyze the absurdity of life in terms of life’s lacking ultimate meaning, value, and purpose. The word “ultimate” is important here, for obviously we can have subsidiary purposes and conditional values without God, but my claim is that ultimately nothing really matters if there is no God. It seems to me that there are two pre-requisites to an ultimately meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life, namely, God and immortality, and if God does not exist, then we have neither.
The Permanent Death
Craig is suggesting two things: (1) if we die, nothing we do matters and (2) if we don’t have a God to worship, nothing we do matters. Let’s talk about (1) first.
Craig compliments (1) with a comment from his book Reasonable Faith: “If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as Stalin or a saint.”
But Craig betrays his point immediately with (2): Craig agrees that life is meaningless without God even if our life is immortal. If our life was meaningless in the first place, making it longer certainly won’t do anything about it. So clearly this criteria has nothing to do with why Craig is claiming life is absurd without God anyways.
But (1) is still silly despite this point, for the reasons I mentioned in “Is Naturalism Bleak and Hopeless?”. While we definitely do die, we can have a purpose in life for the time we are alive. We can be happy while we live. We can experience improvement and direction while we live. We can have wonderful relationships. Our life is nice while we live it, and we have the tools and means to make it nicer.
Craig ups the ante and says that nothing we do matters in one million years, therefore nothing we do ultimately matters. By then, all our memories would have died out and our improvements gone. One million years. Really? So what? I had a good life now. Why should what happens in one million years bother me? The time scale is absolutely ridiculous. One million years ago humans didn’t even exist as we know them.
This complaint about the future one million years ago sounds a little bit demanding. It’s like Bill Gates looking at all his wealth and declaring “I don’t have all the money in the world, therefore I’m dirt poor!” It’s like Oprah deciding “Well, I can’t save all the orphans, therefore what difference does it make? I shouldn’t bother to save any at all!” Just because something isn’t ultimate doesn’t mean it can’t fulfill absolutely everything we want in a purpose.
But what of the differences between Stalin and a saint? What matters if they both end up dying? Well, the lives they individually lived, of course! Who would you rather be: Stalin or a saint? (Here I am taking saint to mean a generically moral person, not one of specifically religious character.)
One spent his or her life helping others and building relationships, and will be remembered as benefitting the world. The other lived his life hurting others and tearing apart relationships, and will be remembered as a great scourge on the planet.
Why would we ever want to live a life as an enemy of happiness, and be forced on some level to hate ourselves? Especially when we can get equal or greater benefits from living a life as a friend? Living Stalin’s life would be futile.
Comparison to the Cosmic Scale
Now what about Craig’s (2), that we need God to have a purpose? His reasoning goes as follows:
in the absence of God we were not created with a purpose in mind; we are the blind byproduct of the evolutionary process. That seems to me undeniable on atheism. I do also make the point that we are insignificant specks and so it is hard to see why our lives have any ultimate importance (again, you can’t say that our moral worth overcomes our insignificance).
This can be summarized as Without God, we don’t matter to the universe. I mean, look at the universe! Look at how big that thing is! It’s bigger than you can imagine. It makes us so insignificantly small.
This much is true. The radius of the observable universe is 45.7 billion lightyears. The radius of Earth 6378.1 kilometers. That means the universe as we know it is 6.7*1019 times bigger than Earth. To put that in perspective, if the observable universe were the the size of Canada, the Earth would be the size of a quark! That’s tiny and insignificant.
But again, why do we care? Why do we need the universe to care about what we do for us to care about what we do? Even if the universe were only the size of the Earth, a meaningless life would not suddenly become meaningful. Just like the length of our life doesn’t make our life any more or less meaningful, the size of the universe doesn’t make our life any more or less meaningful.
As George Smith puts it in his speech now retitled as “How to Defend Atheism”:
You often hear many objections to atheism. There are so many I cannot cover all of them. One of the ones that I want to comment on is the claim that “If atheism is correct, then we’re faced with a cold, indifferent universe, there’s no purpose to our universe, we’re insignificant specs on a whirling planet in a vast galaxy.” Well, that’s quite true. The universe doesn’t give a damn about you. It doesn’t give a damn about me. The point is you’re supposed to give a damn about yourself because if you don’t, no one will. Certainly the universe won’t. And in that sense I suppose you are insignificant as far as the universe is concerned. If you died tomorrow, the universe is going to hold a funeral for you or stop in its tracks. The universe will continue on its merry way. It’s not really correct to say you’re insignificant because the idea of significance and insignificance makes no sense when you consider an inanimate cosmos. Significance is a term that only applies to some sort of conscious evaluation. But nonetheless, in a sense, you are not that significant as far as the totality of the universe is concerned. So far as the problem, “What purpose is there in man’s life?”, there is no purpose in man’s life. There is a purpose hopefully in your own life but it is up to you to set it. Again, if you don’t, no one will for you.
We shouldn’t need to get our significance from the cosmos at all. We are fully adequate, and expected, to give ourselves significance, value, and purpose.
Ultimate Purpose on Atheism Anyway?
While it isn’t necessary in any way to have some sort of ultimate purpose, I, however, actually think we can get one. It isn’t the universe that gives us ultimate meaning, it is us that gives the universe ultimate meaning. The mere fact that intelligent, self-aware consciousness exists — that there is something which can analyze and discover the secrets of the universe is amazing.
The existence of us gives the universe meaning because we can assign meaning to it. We can look at arrangements of matter-energy and give it qualities — we can say this arrangement is beautiful, this arrangement is interesting, this arrangement is better than that arrangement, etc. We don’t need to get our meaning from the universe, for our mere existence makes the universe itself meaningful.
As said before, meaning exists in our minds as a consequence of a human validator. If there was no human around to look at the shapes and respond to them as if they were a smile, then they would not be a smile. They would be meaningless lines. It is therefore the addition of the human that gives things meaning as a consequence of our awareness and psychological ability to see and interpret patterns. The self-aware could be thought of as what gives the universe meaning.
If we (and all other intelligent life) never had existed, nothing would have had any meaning whatsoever. It would just simply be.
This corn is beautiful, but only because humans exist to give it beauty. How boring would the universe be if intelligent life never existed?
So What is an Ultimate Purpose?
So if a finite life doesn’t matter to us and the cosmic scale doesn’t matter to us, and we can be happy and fulfilled without needing what Craig is offering, then what is left of his point? He says that life lacks this thing called an “ultimate” purpose and everything we do is absurd because of it. Why does it matter if life lacks an ultimate purpose? Would lacking an ultimate purpose make us unhappy? Do we have a desire for an ultimate purpose as Craig defines it?
I think not, because in the end, Craig’s argument justifying the merits ultimate purpose is endlessly circular: We need God because God gives us an ultimate purpose, and ultimate purposes are the ones that can only come from God.
But what is wrong with the purposes we already have: to find and succeed in a productive end, to make and keep relationships, to learn new things, etc.? Craig doesn’t say. If we die fulfilled from these purposes, what were we missing? Craig doesn’t say. Atheism doesn’t provide us with an ultimate purpose, but so what? Why should I dispair? Craig doesn’t say.
This means Craig is defining ultimate purpose as the type of purpose that only God can fulfill, and then turning around and saying that only God can give us an ultimate purpose.
Well, go figure.
Followed up in: More Problems With Ultimate Purpose and Heaven
Liked this Essay?
- You can get more Greatplay.net by looking at these categories: All, Humanism.
- Or perhaps you'd be interested in a complete table of contents of all essays?
- You could also subscribing to the RSS feed, or use the sidebar to subscribe for email updates!
- Or you could follow me on Twitter or like me on Facebook
- If you feel particularly participatory, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to leave a comment.
The concept isn’t circular. The problem I see is that Craig’s premise “without ultimate purpose nothing really matters” gives his interlocutor a bulletproof retort: if it is true that “without ultimate purpose nothing really matters,” then the fact that “without ultimate purpose nothing really matters” doesn’t matter.
Nonetheless, I agree with him in spirit, i.e., it doesn’t ultimately matter whether we lived as a sinner or saint if there’s no God. I think most people have an innate longing for justice or fairness in the universe, and because of that, most detest the idea that saint and sinner get paid equally in the end.
This isn’t a counterargument, it is a mere assertion. It just so happens to be a contrary assertion to the one I argued, which are arguments that you could specifically counter-argue if you so chose.
This may be a good point, but I fear it rests on an equivocation: two different meanings of “what matters”.
I think most people have that innate longing too, but not for teleological reasons. That being said, it still is a trivial consequence that the saint and the sinner get paid equally in the end, as long as they aren’t paid equally before the end.
Consider: would you rather live for 500 years, have a through-and-through utterly miserable life and then be permanently annihilated? Or would you rather live for 100 years, have a through-and-through utterly fulfilled and mostly successful life and then be permanently annihilated?
Only if you are truly indifferent between these choices can you say that we must be immortal to matter. And if you happen to prefer the second choice to the first one as I do, then length of life is not the only matter of consequence, but one of them.
You seem a little irritated, but I suspect you’re either misunderstanding me or overlooking the inaccuracy of your own statement. You wrote,
I think not, because in the end, the concept of an ultimate purpose is endlessly circular: We need God because God gives us an ultimate purpose, and ultimate purposes are the ones that can only come from God. [bold mine]
The mere concept of an ultimate purpose is not circular. If God exists and has a purpose for some subset of people who live eternally, that concept is not circular. Yours is the mere assertion here, Peter, I was simply pointing it out. I’m not saying your paraphrase of Craig’s argument isn’t circular, I’m talking about the concept of an ultimate purpose existing. It’s not a circular concept. This is a criticism I thought you would accept in light of the fact that overall, I agree more with you than Craig on this one. Again: on atheism, there is no ultimate purpose aside from the “ultimate” purpose one decides for one’s own life. So what? That can only be an objection if the premise “life is better with WLC’s ultimate purpose” is agreed upon. Obviously, it’s not.
This may be a good point, but I fear it rests on an equivocation: two different meanings of “what matters”.
C’mon Peter… Be precise. The string “what matters” doesn’t even appear in the snippet of mine you cited. Furthermore, I’m using “really matters” consistently in all three instances [in light of ultimate purpose]. That meaning is also intended in the string “doesn’t matter” at the end, i.e., read that as “doesn’t really matter.”
That being said, it still is a trivial consequence that the saint and the sinner get paid equally in the end, as long as they aren’t paid equally before the end.
The former takes the latter into account. I wouldn’t be bothered by the fact that sinner and saint get paid equally in the end if it weren’t for the fact that they often aren’t paid equally before the end. Basic Ecclesiastes from my POV.
Consider: would you rather live for 500 years, have a through-and-through utterly miserable life and then be permanently annihilated? Or would you rather live for 100 years, have a through-and-through utterly fulfilled and mostly successful life and then be permanently annihilated?
You offer a false dichotomy: I’d rather live forever, fulfilled and successful. How was the question intended to advance the conversation?
I was a little irritated because I outlined specifically why I thought Craig’s offering of an ultimate purpose was circular, and it appeared like you didn’t even address it. I wrote “this argument is circular because X”, and you replied “it’s not circular”. It’s like saying “You’re argument fails” and then walking away.
But now that you’ve clarified, I got you, and I understand: you are correct that the concept itself is not circular, it’s only the argument that is circular. I will make the necessary edits to clear that up.
~
Yes, that’s perfect.
~
Ok. What I meant was that you argued: if it is true that “without ultimate purpose nothing really matters,” then the fact that “without ultimate purpose nothing really matters” doesn’t matter.
But I think if you rewrite Craig’s argument like this: “without ultimate purpose, there is no reason to live”, then one cannot respond that “without ultimate purpose, there is no reason to live” doesn’t matter.
That’s why I thought this was an equivocation: Craig’s “nothing really matters” means “nothing is worth attaining in life” and your “doesn’t matter” means “has no consequence to how you go about your life”.
~
I agree that it’s a true shame for someone to steal millions and then get away with it and live a rich life until death, while someone who does well and forfeits an opportunity to steal millions ends up … say… getting run over by a car.
So I agree that not every saint comes out ahead compared to every sinner. But the lack of eternal life is not what makes this a problem …though it could potentially resolve it, giving the right afterlife judging.
~
Of course, it’s not a full list of all opportunities, nor was it even intended to be. The point of offering the choice was to see which one of the two you would choose, assuming you had no other choices, as a means to test your preferences.
If I wanted to see if you liked chocolate or vanilla ice cream better and I asked you “Would you rather have chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream?” it makes no sense to reply back “This is a false dilemma, I want mint.”
Now, how does this advance the conversation? Why do I even want to test your preferences here? This is because I think you do want to live 100 years of good life rather than 500 years of bad life, meaning that length is not the sole determining characteristic of what makes a life worth living, but that we’d be happy to take a shorter life if we were compensated in quality of life.
I wrote “this argument is circular because X”, and you replied “it’s not circular”.
You DIDN’T write that, though, as you’re now aware. So I was within reason to hold my ground there. On we go…
But I think if you rewrite Craig’s argument like this: “without ultimate purpose, there is no reason to live”, then one cannot respond that “without ultimate purpose, there is no reason to live” doesn’t matter.
That’s why I thought this was an equivocation: Craig’s “nothing really matters” means “nothing is worth attaining in life” and your “doesn’t matter” means “has no consequence to how you go about your life”.
Okay, at least now I can understand your objection. If that’s what Craig *ACTUALLY* means, your point stands. If not, it doesn’t. I’m not sure that’s what he actually means, but if you have a clarifying statement from him, let it rip.
This is because I think you do want to live 100 years of good life rather than 500 years of bad life, meaning that length is not the sole determining characteristic of what makes a life worth living, but that we’d be happy to take a shorter life if we were compensated in quality of life.
I got that. I just don’t see how it relates. Is Craig saying, “A longer life is necessarily better than a shorter one, quality aside?” I don’t think he’s saying that, but maybe I’m wrong. If so, show me.
Correct, and sorry for the confusion. I’ve edited the article so that confusion won’t arise again.
From this statement of Craig’s, this is the closest to a clarification I could find: “Maybe Nagel’s claim is that it doesn’t matter that nothing matters; but that doesn’t deny my point that it doesn’t matter, that there is no ultimate meaning.”
That’s the closest I could find Craig defining meaning, but it results in a circular argument: “Without ultimate purpose, nothing matters” means “Without ultimate purpose, nothing has ultimate purpose”.
Personally, I just attributed the stronger of the three positions to Craig out of interpretive charity (my interpretation, your interpretation, and the utterly circular interpretation). If Craig’s statement really was as inane as you made it, then yes, your retort is a good one. Sorry again.
Sort of. Craig seems to be saying that an infinite life is necessarily better than a finite life, quality aside: “What I claim is that without personal immortality our lives ultimately have no meaning or purpose. (I also argue that the same would be the case without God, even given immortality.)”
Perhaps I should have asked:
Would you rather live forever, having a never-ending, through-and-through utterly miserable life?
Or would you rather live for 100 years, have a through-and-through utterly fulfilled and mostly successful life and then be permanently annihilated?
From this statement of Craig’s, this is the closest to a clarification I could find: “Maybe Nagel’s claim is that it doesn’t matter that nothing matters; but that doesn’t deny my point that it doesn’t matter, that there is no ultimate meaning.”
That’s the closest I could find Craig defining meaning, but it results in a circular argument: “Without ultimate purpose, nothing matters” means “Without ultimate purpose, nothing has ultimate purpose”.
Even if you’re right, that would be tautology, not a circular argument. But I don’t think you’re right. Craig’s quote does not reduce thus. He’s just saying Nagel’s claim [and mine by proxy] don’t deny his point that there is no ultimate meaning. Well, it’s not meant to! That’s the whole point: to take Craig’s claim as true, then point out that it doesn’t matter. Problem dissolved.
Craig seems to be saying that an infinite life is necessarily better than a finite life, quality aside: “What I claim is that without personal immortality our lives ultimately have no meaning or purpose. (I also argue that the same would be the case without God, even given immortality.)”
I think you’re reading him wrong. Nothing in that snippet says anything about quality. All he’s saying is this: without God and immortality, there is no ultimate meaning. That’s it. That’s all he’s saying. I think you are hearing something very different than what he’s saying. Mind you, I don’t find his argument persuasive, so it’s not like I’m just trying to be a defense lawyer for Craig.
The answer to your closing question should be obvious: I’d pick the same as you.
Thanks for pointing that out and getting to the bottom of this. Perhaps I did attribute too much intelligence to Craig’s argument.
I just can’t believe that Craig would advance a tautology as if it was a worthwhile argument.
I just can’t believe that Craig would advance a tautology as if it was a worthwhile argument.
He’s not. As I said, “Even if you’re right, that would be tautology, not a circular argument. But I don’t think you’re right.” You’ve misconstrued his argument. From what I can see, the proper response to his argument is to identify his as a subjective preference. As far as I can see, there’s nothing that requires one to accept the premise, “an immortal life with ultimate meaning is better than the alternative.” However, if he were to argue something like, “an immortal life with immeasurable good is better than the alternative,” he’d have you dead in the water because you know that’s true and you can’t say a damn thing to deny it. All you could do is say something like, “Well I don’t have confidence that Christianity will give me such a life.”