A Christian’s Version of an Atheist/Christian Debate

I would have answered him this way:
Meaning springs from our interactions with each other and with ourselves, and this includes our perception of influence on lives to be lived in the future, a generation, two generations, a hundred generations from now. We are free, so far as we can tell, to choose which of those we make central in our lives at any given time. Many of us seek meaning first for ourselves, a level of psychological fulfilment, if you will, and then for our loved ones. Many go on to find meaning in building opportunities for future generations as well: we learn so that we can teach and teach so that people both now and in the future will be better equipped with knowledge to make their lives easier, better, safer, and more enriching. We build and dare and dream and create for the same reasons. We are not limited in our choices for finding meaning in life. We find it in the awesomeness of nature and in the science that helps us describe it. We find it in our interactions and in the literature that captures it for others. We find it anywhere we look if we’re willing to pull our minds to it, and we can do it without creating a metaphor for it that we confusingly and dangerously call God–since so many people out there take that idea to mean so many different and conflicting things. In short, though, our meaning can be found in improving the lot of those we share this world with and those who will share in its fruits when we’re gone.

It’s funny that you post this today, because I’m currently locked in a similar debate. I have never wanted to keymash with my face so badly before. I’ll send the link to my blog as soon as this debate’s over and I can write about it, since he’s bringing up pretty much every stereotypical point. I mean, he told me my life has as much worth as an ant’s. What IS that?

I think this movie reinforces the point you made in the last post: we need to enhance our communication skills. Obviously, the atheist in this clip does not at all reflect your average atheist, but this is how the Christians see us. This is how we are heard. Communication is not just about what you say but also how you are heard, and apparently they are not hearing what we are trying to say very clearly.

The caricatured points that the atheist in the video made all resembled points I HAVE heard real atheists make, though only superficially. Atheists have described emotions as chemical reactions, Dawkins does say that  “what is the purpose of life?” is a meaningless question. Of course, there is much more to it than just that, but these tid-bits are apparently all that the theists remember. The communication is not going through completely.

My response would have been something like this:

I arrived at atheism through a search for truth, not a search for meaning. I admit that I do not have an easy answer to the question of what makes life meaningful. In fact, I am not even sure that this is a sensible question to ask.

However, I am not willing to sacrifice truth for a reassuring fairytale in order to answer such difficult questions.

Nor am I willing to reject truth just because that truth might lead to uncomfortable conclusions. That “love” might one day be reduced to a set of equations or chemical reactions does not fill me with despair. Rather, it fills me with a sense of awe about the universe and deep admiration for the scientists that have tirelessly worked to unravel such mysteries.

Meaning is a subjective interpretation of what we experience.  Look at “Double Rainbow Guy.”  What he saw can easily be explained by understanding that light was being refracted in the water droplets in the sky, causing the light to ‘break apart’ into it’s component colors (I apologize for my less than scientific explanation, but then again I’m not a scientist).  But he was so filled with awe at the beauty of seeing two rainbows at once that it clearly had a deeper meaning to him. 

…and that is perfectly ok.  Just as no one will ever truly know what it’s like to be you, no one will ever truly know the depth and breadth of meaning certain events have in your life.  Whether you ascribe them to science, happenstance or a deity is entirely up to you, or as the saying goes “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
It’s when we attempt to impose our ‘meanings’ on others that the problem arises.

Not only was the “atheist” a caricature, the whole scene was staged & awkward in the way that many films portray young people. There was no sense of it being real, and the cold-blooded skeptic was easy to dislike.

When I lost faith at 33 in the religion that cost me the use of my leg as a child, it was a brutal crash into reality and truth–but I never feared losing meaning in my life, the love I have for my family and friends. In fact, turning to humans for help had far more meaning than turning to a god ever did. Not to mention humans gave me results.

I think the worst stereotype of atheists is that without God there is no love.  As a wife, daughter, parent, and friend I love, and am loved.  That is meaningful.  No god is necessary for that.

Until theists can provide one tiny shred of evidence to back atleast one of their fantastic claims  it’s not a debate, it’s a waste of time. There’s paint drying and grass growing that I could be watching instead of debating delusional people.

It depends on the meaning of the word meaning (laugh). Seriously though, if you are referring to one singular purpose like that of  writing for a pencil, then I don’t think you will find it. But if you are referring to a purpose greater than yourself, something to strive for, then I see no reason why we should limit our meaning to just one thing or to allow someone else to tell us what the meaning of our own lives should be. This is the great existential question of human existence. It most be answered not by some invisible deity on high, but by us as individuals. We have the freedom to create our own meaning in our lives. For me, one of the meanings in my life is my children. But I also find meaning in learning about the world around me and in advancing human knowledge. Today, I find meaning in refuting ridiculous beliefs which are detrimental to human well being.  

I am pretty sure the right answer is “To crush your enemies; to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.”

Here’s my answer to the whence meaning question:

That’s a good question. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to answer it, because I’m not entirely sure which answer would be satisfactory to you. However, I will give it a go, and if you’re not satisfied you’re welcome to ask me follow-up questions or talk to me after the Q&A. First of all, I should like to distinguish between meaning as in purpose and as in value. I’m not sure which one you’re interested in, but I’ll address both. Purpose arises from the existence of goal-driven beings such as ourselves. You might think that if there is no single creator of all existence, then existence has no overall purpose. You might be right but I submit to you, that such an overall purpose might not be desirable. Would you rather be a tool made for a specific goal, not usable for anything else, locked in your role for eternity regardless of what you would rather do with your life? Or would you like freedom to shape your own existence? To find your own purpose in life? To be able to grow and apply yourself to new things, which you were never “designed” to do in the first place?

To me this applying of the self to a good cause is what brings our existence purpose and value. The purpose of life is to use it for good; to make it better in some way for yourself and for others. To make the world better for having you in it. The value – what makes life worth living – is seeing what needs to be done, what ought to be done, and doing it. To see the fruits of your labour and the positive results of your existence. We humans are (probably) the only beings in the universe with both the capacity to imagine a better would that could be, and the ability and resources to ensure that it will be. These qualities are in no way contingent upon the existence of supernatural beings, and would rather be hampered if we all had a prewritten script, which we all must act out. Meaning arises from being human and being human arises from our continued dream to be more. As famous fantasy-author and atheist Terry Pratchett once remarked: “I’d rather be a rising ape than a fallen angel.”

Is this answer satisfactory to you?

 *”to imagine a better world” it should say. Not “a better would,” of course.

I would argue first that depending on how one defines meaning, the theist has no better access to it than the atheist does.  Giving something (praise, obedience) to a being who cannot possibly BENEFIT in any way from it seems like the most futile behavior I can imagine. Consider also that God would have set up all the boundary conditions and everything that happens, that results from that, is purely deterministic, so the praise is like the money a child is given by the father…to buy a Father’s Day gift.  Except that in this case, the father also instructs the child what to buy, and when, and where, and for how much, and what to do with the change.Also, the idea that meaning MUST come from outside oneself renders God’s own existence (if there were such a being) meaningless.  If meaning can in principle come from inside oneself, be intrinsic, as it presumably would have to be for God, then there is no reason–in principle–that our meaning could not also be intrinsic and come from within.I would point out that it is mistaken to think that activities or states of being that are not eternal or even long-lasting are not innately meaningful by virtue of their evanescence, by pointing to a story about Jesus.  The pharisees came to Jesus and asked him if a man’s wife died and he remarried and then his second wife died and he remarried again, and so forth (assuming, I guess, that women are going to want to keep marrying this extremely unlucky dude), who would he be married to in heaven.  And Jesus said, You don’t understand; people are not married in heaven.  I defy you to find an evangelical who things that marriage is meaningless, yet Jesus seems to have thought that marriage only exists for our short lives on earth.  And in the Hebrew section of the Bible, the Jews didn’t even really HAVE a concept of an afterlife…except as a sort of vague “shade” existence.  Yet one does not sense in reading their holy book that they pined for meaning.I have said that to complain that the universe has no meaning is like complaining that a gym has no exercise.  What it has is all the equipment we could need to create meaning in our lives–way more than we could ever need.  And the best expression I’ve ever seen of that idea is here: http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=14662

Am I the only one who immediately noticed the fact that the video player tricks you into thinking the clip is shorter than it is by moving the progress bar faster in the beginning of the clip than in the end? I honestly find that a lot more interesting than how some Christian filmmaker portrays me as an atheist (I mean, was I supposed to have expected anything less than an inaccurate caricature?)

 Very true. I did not mean that the theists have no fault in the miscommunication. Their ears are very often stuffed with cotton, metaphorically. We just need to be on the lookout for methods of communication that make their way through the cotton.

I don’t know what those methods are, but it’s something we should be thinking about.

 I remember reading the book too. Laughed my ass off when he started crying about how much Jesus loved him…and this was when I used to be Christian! Nothing in the gospels even gave me the warm fuzzies. I think that in the back of my mind, I was processing the fact that Jesus was absurdly two-dimensional and that he wasn’t even really that impressive. Give me Buddha, hell, give me the FSM over some Bronze-age caricature of a backwoods apocalyptic rabbi any damn day.

When my children were small,  they looked forward to Christmas morning, to see what presents Santa Claus had brought them for their good behavior.   Christmas was a reward for adherence to doctrine.   
Then, older,  now knowing that Santa Claus is a fiction,  they look forward to Christmas morning as a day in which our closeness as family is celebrated.   Christmas is now its own reward, because they make it so.

Meaning that is imposed by doctrine can be take away in an instant.  Meaning that you create is yours forever.

We live amongst the meaning, we live on the same planet and we face many of he same struggles as those who give the responsibility to God. We recognize the responsibility to be our own. We do not search for reasons to hate out of unacceptance or difference. We merely search for fulfillment in the here and now, not the after life. Religion is an attempt at perminance in an ever changing world.

double rainbow guy! lol. best internet meme evah.

i gave up on the quest for ‘meaning’ in life a long time ago. it’s sort of a stupid assumption to make in the first place, imho. does a dandelion’s life have “meaning?” a squid’s? why does existence have to have “meaning,” and to whom, in the first place? it can be a fun philosophical game, but that’s really the best that question will ever be, for me. 

and Hemant, are you sure the atheist is (all) white? he looks to be about my color and i’m not. 

 Awesome. Just…awesome.  🙂

Life doesn’t have an inherent meaning. It just is. And that’s ok.

If you want to, though, you can give your own life a meaning, a purpose. Mine is to make people happy and to experience happiness myself. Preferably both at the same time. I think that’s meaning enough for me.

What a caricature the atheist debater is!

Before jumping to that conclusion (which is a common theme here; I don’t mean to single you out), I’d be interested in hearing the opinion of someone who’s read the book.

Blue Like Jazz is a semi-fictional autobiography. For all I know, the portrayal might be an accurate depiction of an actual debate, and the guy was really that bad. Or it might be an accurate depiction of the impression that a real debate made on Miller at that impressionable age, through the lens of an unreliable narrator.

Nobody is claiming that this movie is a work of journalism.

Using the movie’s title as a jumping off point,  I am in awe of the creative genius of the human mind in creating great works of music, art and feats of engineering. Just close your eyes and listen to Miles Davis’ “Kind of Blue” —with such creativity, no god is needed.

We should all strive to bring such meaning into the world.

Yeah, clearly a set up, but I don’t have a problem with a lot of what he says. They take perfectly sensible arguments and make just the slightest tweaks to them to make them sound nasty. From my point of view the Christian debater looks pretty bad too though. If you’re trying to make religion look better than atheism, you would think you could do better than to use the same tired arguments about beauty and love that we’ve heard over and over again, expressed rather poorly but with an accent to make them sound smarter.

My answer might start like the atheist in the clip, the universe doesn’t owe you meaning, I kind of like that, but I would say, if you’re looking for meaning, I suggest you look inward. Any purpose or meaning you find in life beyond mere survival is what you create for yourself. I find meaning in trying to make a world where my children can have better lives than I have and where people around the world who struggle simply to get adequate calories can have the kind of opportunities we in more privileged positions take for granted every day. If you’re having trouble finding meaning, I suggest that instead of looking to a preacher to hand it to you on a platter, you go out and find something you find meaningful. Volunteer for a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. Take some classes in subjects you find interesting. Travel to other countries, especially less developed ones. If you’re looking for meaning in life, you have to first see some of the variety of life on the planet.

I’d take it a step further and ask just what it is that makes him think the sunset is more beautiful. Within that dung thrives a colony of gut flora that have made the life of the animal that deposited it possible, it will feed fantastically beautiful, shimmering shelled beetles, roses of gorgeous color and aroma, juicy, delicious, and nourishing tomatoes. The sunset is beautiful in one way, on the surface, to the eye. The dung has a beauty as a part and symbol of the cycle of life, it is only by understanding the important role it plays in life on earth that it’s beauty can be found. Much as finding purpose and meaning through a lifetime of learning can be far more profound than meaning handed down by some authority, beauty found in a deeper understanding can be more profound as well.

I found this tidbit on the author’s blog linked above:

 To fit God inside our logic is to reduce him. And a reduced God is easy to refute.

This is inherently true, but Miller seems to think it is an argument for God’s existence, when it is clearly an argument against. But it is also the kind of key argument we have to get down to. Anyone who believes this is essentially saying that he cannot win an argument with a skilled debater on logical grounds, it is an impossibility. He can only win if his opponent makes a mistake or by purely appealing to emotion and fallacious reasoning. It is not, and can never be, a fair debate. It is pointless to debate anyone without first getting this out of the way. Once they concede this, it’s over. You’ve won before you started on logical grounds. This is why I will always insist, before any such debate, that we agree on a coherent definition of God. What is God to you, because if you won’t be nailed down on that, then there’s no point in going forward. I’m reminded of an appearance of Ray Comfort on the Atheist Experience, which went on for quite some time, every point Ray tried to make was utterly demolished and he finally conceded that “true” faith is purely based on personal experience and MUST be independent of evidence and reason, it must be a gnostic or experiential faith (my words, not Ray’s). Which meant that while the debate may have been interesting or edifying to the audience, it was in some respect a complete waste of time. Both Miller and Comfort are essentially saying that they don’t care what your evidence or logic say. If evidence and logic disagree with my gut feeling, then they are meaningless. To pretend to be engaged in a debate involving logic for such a person is fundamentally dishonest.

Now that’s truly fascinating. I think most Americans looking at Ford see an African American. Yet most Americans looking at his parents would see white people. It shows how race is entirely constructed. It is entirely possible that Tennessee Ernie Ford (or his wife) had some recent African ancestry that they either didn’t know about, or weren’t about to mention as long as they were living as white people in a very racist America.

Gregory H. Williams, the President of the University of Cincinnati, wrote a book called Life on the Color Line, about his experiences as a child. Williams father was black by the “one drop” standard of the segregated south, but Williams did not live with him and grew up as a white child until he moved to his father’s home town, where everyone knew who he was and suddenly he was subject to all the inequality of the Jim Crow south. In his case almost no one who saw him would see anything but a white man.

On the one hand, Ford’s ancestry is none of anyone’s business and shouldn’t matter, on the other hand it could make a fascinating story and window into the construction of race in America.

And yet there IS disdain between Old Money and New Money families, heh.

That was cold and obviously Xian.  I’m late to the party, but I would have said we make our own meaning, adding that some of us find meaning through family and friends, as well as animals and nature, while find meaning by doing some sort of community service or helping others.  I think they also screwed up by portraying Xians as W.A.S.P.s  Not all Xians are W.A.S.P.s, just as not all atheists come from one groups of people either.  Not all atheists are arrogant and not all Xians have corn cobs stuck up their butts.  That clip was pretty bad.

Hell is a real place and if you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your savior you will pay the consequences. Please research and don’t be quick to make a conclusion.