How Do YOU Derive Meaning In Life?

Ultimately, existence could be seen as pointless regardless of what is believed or not.

If one who would otherwise be bad is good simply to meet the demands of God, it could be construed as meaningless. This is merely bribery or manipulation.

Alternatively, if one is terrible only because he believes God's grace will suffice, it could also be construed as meaningless. This is sheer arrogance!

Or if one is terrible only because he believes nothing, this could be viewed as meaningless too. If there is no God to appease, his only “hope” seems to be bettering himself at the apparent expense of everybody else. There is just something “cold” about this.

On the other hand, one who believes nothing but is nonetheless good could be viewed as meaningless as well. Why be good if it precludes him from maximizing his own desires and ambitions?

And last, one could be good independent of his belief but believe anyway. This could be seen as meaningless because why would he believe if he was already good? Possibly his only reason for believing is that he genuinely believes it to be true as opposed to believing only because he thinks great benefits will ensue and/or he will avoid eternal judgment.

Refer to my discussions on the nature of belief and it will reinforce my argument that belief's only worthwhile contribution is that it can, not necessarily will, make otherwise bad people good or at least relatively better. The reason I say it can as opposed to will make people good or better is because some people systematically become worse through the use of arrogant self-righteousness.

My point here is not to sow hopelessness. It is to demonstrate that because we are all different, there are numerous ways to find meaning in life.

Dilemma Of A Freethinker

Let's suppose only freethinkers without belief in a personal God have difficulty finding meaning in life. This is of course nowhere near actuality, but bear with me for the sake of argument. In this case, it is commonly asserted that the reason a freethinker becomes depressed is because he does not acknowledge and, therefore, have faith in a personal God. Instead, he attempts to explain life through thought and rationality and as such is precluded from believing in any sort of personal deity.

Well then, why might he become depressed apart from belief in a personal God? Of course many will confidently assert that only belief in God can ever fulfill him and provide meaning. In this case, it is obvious why he becomes depressed. Because he does not tap into the “treasure chest” that is God.

But an opposing perspective could just as easily claim the reason this freethinker depressingly concludes life has no meaning is because there ultimately is no personal God and hence, the only way to avoid feeling depressed about life's meaninglessness is to just believe in something warm and fuzzy regardless of whether it is actually true or even remotely likely to be true. But of course once one has acknowledged this thought, it is too late. 

There is just no way a freethinker can now decide to “believe” something warm and fuzzy simply for the sake of believing something warm and fuzzy. I am a freethinker and believe there is meaning in life apart from belief in a personal God. In this way, life can be absolutely meaningful.

As I've alluded to previously, a personal God might exist but I see more meaning without belief in Him because belief in Him would simply render any meaning I have in life relative, contingent upon my believing He's there. And if meaning in life is merely relative, it can not be absolutely meaningful. Can it?

If Only Everybody Believed The Same Thing, Things Would Be Fine!

"Well," it will likely be retorted, "I don't think things would be fine if everybody was a militant Muslim!" But if everybody was a militant Muslim, would anybody be a militant Muslim? It seems a militant Muslim would have nobody to be militant toward and hence no reason to be militant at all. Which just begs the question, how could a militant mindset originate without a purported enemy?

It takes an opposing view, not necessarily any more right or wrong or good or bad than another, to foment conflict in the first place! So once again, if only everybody believed the same thing, things would be fine.

I must confess, however, I'm not quite that naive. After all, I'm pretty certain if we did not have religion or politics or alma maters or whatever else to fight over, we would "find" as-yet-unknown things to fight over. After all, we must fight. It's that pesky ego!

How About Illegalizing Indoctrination?

Where does much of society's conflict and strife seem to originate? Perhaps indoctrination explains much of it, most notably among its naive "little ones". For children will pretty much believe anything they are told to believe (sadly, many of us will too). If they are told in the crib that certain races or cultures are inherently evil or inferior or that others with divergent beliefs or cultural practices are wrong or weird, they will have little gumption not to believe it.

Much of this indoctrination will sow ill feelings in the years to come, creating conflict which would otherwise be absent. Should "we"* forcefully prevent the kind of indoctrination that leads to terrorism, this being perhaps the worst of its many ill faces? Certainly it can then be argued that this would be an affront to the basic freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants to believe". However, the ill consequence of "protecting" this freedom is that it seems to create or at least magnify wars and other such conflicts thus providing the ultimate trigger to kill and maim.

What is the imperative? To provide the freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants" knowing full well its negative consequences or simply banning the kind of indoctrination that creates such violent division in the first place?

*"We" is highlighted to differentiate its many faces. Ask "we" in Iran or North Korea or Afghanistan or Iraq or Papua New Guinea or Scandinavia or France or wherever else and "we" will have many divergent goals and ideals. So the relevant question might be, "whose indoctrination should be censored?" It seems wars and violence are predicated not necessarily on clear right/wrong dichotomies but on the simple principle that peoples' opposing views and preferences create contradictions and hence conflict when "forced" to live side by side. At this point, "creating" enemies out of "others" (herein enters the purported right/wrong dichotomy into the conflict, thus giving the "good" guy moral justification for it) is obligatory when it becomes apparent that any attempt to "intertwine" these contradictions is destined to fail.** And so ensues tension which manifests itself as at best simple conflict and disagreement, at worst war. Much like the AIDS virus being viewed as "bad" from our perspective, it is only "bad" because the both of us cannot peacefully coexist. But ask yourself this: in the grand scheme of things, do you really think there is anything particularly "bad" about the AIDS virus in itself? Decidedly not! It is just trying to make its way about the world like the rest of us! But it causes US harm so we think it fair to label IT "bad" and believe this to be an objective judgment. But of course it is anything but objective! Once again, as per my hypothetical idea of censoring certain types of indoctrination, which types then? Perhaps those with uncontested control of the world should make this decision for everybody else, as has always been the case. But these days, I don't know? Who might this be?

**This is a rather silly argument to illustrate my point. I ask you to think more deeply than seeing this only as an argument between 2 young boys fighting over a most trivial matter. As such, project the following parable onto almost any argument and I believe there is relevance: I have never met anybody that believes colors to be intrinsically "good" or "bad". Imagine 2 brothers are going to share a Nintendo DS for Christmas. Peter likes blue but Sam likes red. Each is so compelled to get the device in his chosen color that it becomes an obsession. As a result, they become so identified with their chosen colors that they actually convince themselves their favorite colors are "good" in turn making other colors antithetical to "good" and hence "bad". If you're not with me you're against me! It's that vexatious war mindset so commonly used to justify conflict in the first place***. Since the other brother wants a "bad" color, he is "bad" and thus an enemy. Once again, the purported right/wrong dichotomy creeps into the conflict because it provides moral justification. With this then, the "good" guy is justified to fight because he is "right". And which one IS the "good" guy? Why that's simply a matter of perspective.

***This "if you're not with me you're against me" dichotomy preys on human instinct with reckless abandon. Since we are social animals, we have a need (or perhaps just an irresistible instinct) to be part of clearly defined groups to give us a sense of social identity. What does this compel us to do? Choose sides. In which case people "join" either the "with" or "against" group and conflict is thus born! Note that without this "choosing of sides", there would exist no with/against dichotomy and hence conflict would be avoided altogether! It is also important to note that most of us are compelled to choose one or the other because it "seems" as if those are the only two options. Politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, love to delude us (and themselves of course) into believing there is only "with" and "against" because they are always looking to recruit people for their "sacred" cause(s). Of course if you choose "against" them, they are morally justified in criticizing you! However, this with/against dichotomy is usually untenable. Almost always "with" and "against" are simply opposite ends of a spectrum. In which case there exist many subtle combinations of "with" and "against" along this spectrum. Upon recognizing this "truth" in a given conflict, I myself choose the "middle", in effect doing my part to "strip" the conflict of its "identity". This is what politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, among others, live for: to recruit people for their cause(s) in order to give the conflict(s) "identity".

No Faith Or The Wrong Faith?

It is often claimed by those certain of God's existence that atheists are unwise not to have faith. But then it is just as easily stated that "it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God". So is the issue that atheists lack faith or that atheists simply have the wrong faith?

In the end, whether one chooses to place his faith in God or atheism, the problem is the same: they are both blind assumptions. Hence the need to make faith commitments. How much faith does it require to concede uncertainty?

The Problem Of Complexity

Believers in God often claim that atheism is problematic because how, without a divine Designer, could we, let alone other less complicated things, exist at all*?

Implicit in this question is an attempt to explain how complexity arose by positing that God minimizes this "problem". But how? From where did God come?

"He is uncaused! He needs no explanation!" Really? How would we know this to be true? It is but a blind assumption, tantamount to believing everything is WITHOUT God. Furthermore, if it is assumed that something infinitely complicated requires no cause, why should it be anymore assumed that something merely finitely complicated requires a cause?

At this point, might it be less absurd to believe a finite thing (like atheism) requires no cause than to believe an infinite thing (like God) requires no cause?

In the end, how does God minimize the problem of complexity? Might He actually MAGNIFY it?

*Might God ever ponder who or what designed Himself? If He does, this puts Him in the very same predicament as us, attempting to appeal to someone or something beyond Himself. If He does not, doesn't this make Him just like an atheist?

The Value Of Understanding One Another

Two people with contradictory conclusions can be more alike than two people with identical conclusions.

For instance, let's talk about what to do with illegal immigrants already in this country. Jim and Sally both emphatically believe these people should be able to stay in this country. They conclude the same thing so they will probably be thought of as having similar ideologies, right?

Well, what if Jim is a "greedy" contractor who views illegal immigrants as nothing more than cheap labor with little gumption to revolt against oppressive work standards thus resulting in more profit and less hassle for himself? And what if Sally is genuinely sympathetic to the immigrants' plight and as such believes they should be allowed to stay? The two share no common ideology in this case. They only share a conclusion.

On the other hand, let's say Sally is talking to Bob and they are at odds over what to do with illegal immigrants. Sally believes they should be allowed to stay but Bob thinks otherwise. They must share different ideologies, right?

Well, what if each is motivated by sympathy to peoples' plight but assume Bob is thinking more that the sheer number of illegal immigrants in this country will “cannibalize” social services for the “legal” immigrants and citizens already here? In other words, they are both motivated by sympathy and mercy for people but are at odds over how to engender the desired good for society.

My underlying point is that it seems so often there is much argument concerning conflicting conclusions whereas I think these conflicting conclusions do not necessarily suggest difference in ideology or moral sentiments. But because this is thought to be the case, conflict ensues regarding whose conclusion is right.

And so fosters a lack of understanding which ultimately causes disharmony and precludes “us” from getting along. A primary focus of my viewpoint is that I care less what somebody believes and more why somebody believes.

How Will We Be Judged?

Will God judge us based on our intentions or on our beliefs and actions? In other words, does there exist an absolute standard by which He will judge us?

If it is absolute, He can not arbitrarily evaluate one person on his intentions and another on his actions. If this is the case, it is problematic when carried out to its logical ramifications. If God judges everybody based on individual intentions, I don't see how He could condemn an Islamic terrorist hell-bent on killing innocent people if this person genuinely believes he is doing so for God's glory.

On the other hand, if God judges us based purely on our beliefs and actions, He would out of necessity have to condemn a retarded cripple only because his misfortune, through no fault of his own, precludes him from harboring a cogent belief of any sort and from doing anything worthwhile for God's sake.

Now obviously many will arbitrarily claim He will judge some based on intentions and others based on actions and still others based on a combination of both. But how would anybody know by which standard he himself will be judged?

Circular Reasoning

Pertaining to peoples' definite claims about the nature of reality, it must be pointed out that whatever one is initially inclined to believe is, out of necessity, going to be the only logical conclusion. The reason this is the case is because fundamental presuppositions must be set forth to conclude anything which in turn necessitates the use of circular reasoning. One can only ever conclude the nature of reality based on his underlying assumptions. 

For example, we might ask that if God exists, how is His own existence explained? If one presupposes a hypothetical God is uncaused (presumably a believer of any God must), of course through “logical” reasoning it will be concluded that He almost certainly exists.

On the other hand, if one presupposes a hypothetical God requires a cause like everything else is thought to, he will conclude “logically” that God almost certainly does not exist.

Do people choose presuppositions exclusively because these assumptions support something they already or at least “want” to believe? Almost certainly, which is what makes it so difficult to objectively evaluate the veracity of these kinds of conclusions.

An unbeliever will likely be accused of choosing only those presuppositions which support his inclination to deny the existence of God. But a believer does just the same. Simply choose the presuppositions that will inevitably lead to the conclusion that God almost certainly exists.

What is my aim in this discourse? That there is no compelling reason to believe anything wholeheartedly. As I've alluded to on many counts, I don't have a problem with this. It does not matter to me whether God does or does not exist. I can live a fulfilled life with or without God or at least with or without belief in God. To allay the concerns of those suspicious that my lack of belief will lead me astray, do not worry! I have no compulsion to degenerate into a wretched, vile animal just because I don't believe in God!

I want to be forthright about something. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs. We are ultimately going to believe only what we want to believe. With this in mind, we must brace ourselves with the fact that many people are going to believe contrary to us. We should be humble and respectful and simply agree to disagree.

What Makes God's Ideals Ideal?

I believe one of the subtle messages Jesus taught about ideals is that it is not enough, nay it is nearly meaningless I tell you, to follow ideals with practicality in mind. Meaning, if one follows ideals only within the context of what is deemed practical, he will likely never follow them when they are at all meaningful. In other words, I think Jesus was teaching us that ideals are only truly ideal when they are not practical.

For instance, consider Jesus' teachings on love as an ideal. If treated as such, love is most ideal or perhaps only ideal when it involves loving those that are most difficult to love. If you only love those that reciprocate, what credit is that to you? Even the devil of hell and mobsters are quite capable of this! Loving only those that love you certainly is practical but is far from ideal. Applying this principal to other things like forgiveness and mercy, it appears many might believe in ideals. However, their Achilles' heel prohibits them from actually exercising these ideals when it is impractical to do so. But when an ideal is exercised only when it is practical, it will not be followed when it is most needed. This is not ideal.

Isn't it touching that people have sympathy for an abused baby or an abandoned puppy? Of course people have sympathy for them! But this is a case of practical sympathy. It does not require anything close to that of a saint to be sympathetic to the plight of a suffering child or defenseless puppy. But what about having genuine sympathy for a convicted rapist, drug abuser or child molester facing dire consequences entirely brought on by his irresponsible and reckless behavior? At this point, most would adopt the ideal that he is reaping what he has sown. This certainly feels much more emotionally comforting for most because it is practical. Which means any and all sympathy for a “low-life” like this is conveniently abandoned in favor of the emotional satisfaction of feeling like he is getting what he deserves. But if the ideal of sympathy is taken seriously, what could possibly be a better demonstration of it than to have sympathy especially for a dreg like this?

Conversely, if we subscribe to the ideal that one should reap what he sows, there is no reason to have sympathy for a penniless widow if she is penniless because she did not prepare responsibly for this possibility. Are there many people that would not have sympathy for this woman? I would like to think not! My point is that no matter how much we try to act out and uphold ideals, if we do not do so absolutely, our ideals become merely relative. Which means they are not really ideal. They are simply arbitrary based on any given individual's preference.

With this realization then, I must admit I fail to see God as the author of many of our supposed "ideals" and moral convictions. Rather, I see ego as its principle author.

To Be Or To Believe?

Why does one need to believe anything? Why can't he just be? The “real” person seems ultimately to be what he or she does, not what he or she believes. So might it be irrelevant to get encumbered in beliefs?

I would much rather somebody forgive me than tell me he believes in forgiveness! It might be pointed out that one needs to believe something. But so much of the time we fail to act according to our beliefs anyway. Furthermore, I don't think failure to act in accordance with a belief necessarily means it is not believed. This is why belief is ultimately futile.

The essence of one's being, who he really is, is the true test of what he “believes”. In this sense, there is no need for him to believe anything. It is just to be. And this being will manifest itself as doing which is ultimately the only useful purpose of any belief.....to coax us into doing it.