Question to the few theists here

[Thewhovianathogwarts]

Okay, so my Catholic friend and I were talking, and somehow religion came up. He's intelligent, and the conversation was civilized, but I kind of felt like face palming whenever he said anything. For example, he said, "If there's no god then what's the point?" And I've heard that so much that I felt like he was being dumb, but he wasn't. In my head I was like, "The answer is so obvious that I can't believe you don't know it and do I even have to explain this to you?" So, do theists also feel like this when atheists use commonly used arguments? I'm curious.

[miniboes]

I'm afraid we don't really have any theists around. We scared them away I guess.

[brimstoneSalad]

We have at least one now! But yes, we do need more theists here to argue with (not to sound ungrateful for the one we have).

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

Okay, so my Catholic friend and I were talking, and somehow religion came up. He's intelligent, and the conversation was civilized, but I kind of felt like face palming whenever he said anything. For example, he said, "If there's no god then what's the point?" And I've heard that so much that I felt like he was being dumb, but he wasn't. In my head I was like, "The answer is so obvious that I can't believe you don't know it and do I even have to explain this to you?"

Well, if the answer is truly obvious, it should be easy to put into words. If he sincerely feels like that, then yes, you should explain. Often putting things into words that seem obvious, but are still hard to put into words is really elucidating, for all involved. There are philosophers that say that that's the only thing philosophy does, putting the seemingly obvious into words. Anyway, when I was an atheist, I did often feel like: "What's the point?" If the universe came into existence out of nothing, by some kind of quantum fluctuation, you could feel that everything is still essentially nothing. I have felt like that at times, when I was very depressed at the time too, so I'm not saying atheism necessarily causes that kind of feeling, but it does allow for them.

If there is no intention behind the universe, our axiology (sorry just wanted to use that word) must be arbitrary. Or to put it in plain english: the only values we can have are the ones of our choice. There were no values until humans came along and decided to place value on such things as a minimum of suffering in the world, there's no other entity that could uphold any values, other than humans, or possibly other intelligent creatures.

This is exactly what Nietzsche recognized: if there is no moral standard that exists independent of man, we have to create our own values. This was atheist existentialism avant la lettre, where Camus saw this searching for higher meaning, as a doomed quest, an exercise in futility, where we would have to find our strength in accepting or even reveling in the futility/absurdity of life without a pre-existing moral standard. Camus also saw as the first question a philosopher should ask himself the question "What's the point of living?" or "Why not commit suicide?", and realized there's no answer without God, except for to just embrace the absurdity of existence, the wandering, the not-knowing.

So, do theists also feel like this when atheists use commonly used arguments? I'm curious.

I can't speak for other theists, and I'm a relatively rare theist, a nonreligious one. I feel many arguments against for example taking the Bible as infallible are good. One argument atheists often use, but I think shouldn't, is, "if God is good, then why is there so much suffering in the world?" Many (most?) theists believe people have in the past chosen to walk away from the loving laws of the universe, out of free will, and that suffering is a result of people not living in harmony with the laws. If I don't respect a certain law of thermodynamics, and put my hand on a hot stove, I get burned. That's not punishment, that's just how it works. If I don't respect other laws of the universe, such as moral laws, life becomes shitty around me, and I do believe that can also influence the way animals and nature behave.

[EquALLity]

If there is no intention behind the universe, our axiology (sorry just wanted to use that word) must be arbitrary. Or to put it in plain english: the only values we can have are the ones of our choice. There were no values until humans came along and decided to place value on such things as a minimum of suffering in the world, there's no other entity that could uphold any values, other than humans, or possibly other intelligent creatures.

Even if this is true, IMO it's better to have moral values based on concern for others, because you care, than to have 'values' just because you're told they're right (especially when those values are often harmful to humanity, and are based on illogical things).

Not that your values are necessarily harmful to humanity, and that they're really just instructions, but I think that's a lot of theists. They oppose two people in love getting married, they are against a woman's right to choose, and they support the death penalty, and then they say that "atheism doesn't respect life (because Hitler was an atheist!!!!11!1)" etc..

[Lightningman_42]

If there is no intention behind the universe, our axiology (sorry just wanted to use that word) must be arbitrary. Or to put it in plain english: the only values we can have are the ones of our choice. There were no values until humans came along and decided to place value on such things as a minimum of suffering in the world, there's no other entity that could uphold any values, other than humans, or possibly other intelligent creatures.

Even if this is true, IMO it's better to have moral values based on concern for others, because you care, than to have 'values' just because you're told they're right (especially when those values are often harmful to humanity, and are based on illogical things).

Well said, I certainly agree with that. What I find troubling about many theists' morality is that it emphasizes following rules regardless of whether those who do so understand them. Many theists claim that morality is arbitrary without a deity to set the standard. I'd say that morals are arbitrary with or without God, if they have no discernible purpose other than respecting the wishes of one (or a few) authority figure(s). I could say that God's laws are arbitrary if following them would cause misery and violence for no apparent reason, after all they are then simply whatever one authority figure says they are.

Now on the topic of theists who believe life is meaningless without God/gods to give them purpose: if they really mean this then it's not helpful to say "isn't it obvious". In this scenario I'd welcome the opportunity to elaborate on my perspective. I'd ask them why they follow their passions, or why they're determined to bring joy to others' lives. Does the theist's answer include something other than "because that's what God wants of me"? Yes? Then I'd ask this theist to imagine their life and existence without God. Perhaps this existence would seem less purposeful, but would still seem to have at least some purpose.

I hope this helps.

[Thewhovianathogwarts]

Well, if the answer is truly obvious, it should be easy to put into words. If he sincerely feels like that, then yes, you should explain. Often putting things into words that seem obvious, but are still hard to put into words is really elucidating, for all involved. There are philosophers that say that that's the only thing philosophy does, putting the seemingly obvious into words.

I did refute his argument quite easily with the standard, "What's the point if there is a god?"speech which I'm sure everyone's heard a million times. This whole thought process was just going through my head for like two seconds. Sorry if I didn't explain that!

Anyway, when I was an atheist, I did often feel like: "What's the point?" If the universe came into existence out of nothing, by some kind of quantum fluctuation, you could feel that everything is still essentially nothing. I have felt like that at times, when I was very depressed at the time too, so I'm not saying atheism necessarily causes that kind of feeling, but it does allow for them.
If there is no intention behind the universe, our axiology (sorry just wanted to use that word) must be arbitrary. Or to put it in plain english: the only values we can have are the ones of our choice. There were no values until humans came along and decided to place value on such things as a minimum of suffering in the world, there's no other entity that could uphold any values, other than humans, or possibly other intelligent creatures.This is exactly what Nietzsche recognized: if there is no moral standard that exists independent of man, we have to create our own values.

You're right that our only values are of our own choice. They do happen to be pretty similar for everyone (don't rape, kill, steal, etc.), but that's unrelated. And your'e right that less intelligent creatures that came before us probably didn't have set morals, but they also probably didn't kill or steal or do bad things. They just existed, ate, slept. But anyway, you are correct: Humans must make their own morals. (I may be interpreting what you said wrong. Sorry, it's late )

This was atheist existentialism avant la lettre, where Camus saw this searching for higher meaning, as a doomed quest, an exercise in futility, where we would have to find our strength in accepting or even reveling in the futility/absurdity of life without a pre-existing moral standard.

I'm kind of confused what you mean by this. I might just be having a total derpy Marie moment, but I kind of don't get this. Not saying you did anything wrong, this confusion is all on me. Would you mind explaining it??

[quote="AlexanderVeganTheist] Camus also saw as the first question a philosopher should ask himself the question "What's the point of living?" or "Why not commit suicide?", [/quote]
Evolutionarily speaking, the point of living is to pass your genetic code on to the next generation. Why not commit suicide? Well, you enjoy living, don't you. You have to live to pass on your genes. You have to live to contribute to society and the general well-being of the world. You have to live to do anything, and as human beings we want to do things, to be productive, and (sorry to bring it up again) to reproduce.

and realized there's no answer without God, except for to just embrace the absurdity of existence, the wandering, the not-knowing.

And why can't we embrace, as you put it, the absurdity of existence? Existence is absurd. Just think about it! Why can't we be comfortable in the knowledge that we don't know? There's no proof for a God, and no proof that there is no God (you can't prove a negative), which means that WE DON'T KNOW. No one does. (BTW, the Bible doesn't count as proof. It's the claim, not the evidence.)

Thanks for your answer to my question! (Sorry, I was curious! )

[garrethdsouza]

"What's the point?" If the universe came into existence out of nothing, by some kind of quantum fluctuation, you could feel that everything is still essentially nothing. I have felt like that at times, when I was very depressed at the time too, so I'm not saying atheism necessarily causes that kind of feeling, but it does allow for them.

If one is a creationist, then the universe was still created out of nothing so that issue still remains.

If there is no intention behind the universe, our axiology (sorry just wanted to use that word) must be arbitrary. Or to put it in plain english: the only values we can have are the ones of our choice.

Saying our values are arbitrary just because our existence was not intentional is a non sequitur. And it's also contradicting the choice argument which is non arbitrary.
The values we have or how we go about our lives are always based on the choices we make. Whether it's someone else's intention to bring us into existence or not, based on our circumstances its we who determine what purpose we choose our limited existence for.

If the argument is that the universe's going to all end anyways so why bother, we can at least make a purpose for the finite amount of time we do have.

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

"What's the point?" If the universe came into existence out of nothing, by some kind of quantum fluctuation, you could feel that everything is still essentially nothing. I have felt like that at times, when I was very depressed at the time too, so I'm not saying atheism necessarily causes that kind of feeling, but it does allow for them.

If one is a creationist, then the universe was still created out of nothing so that issue still remains.

No, then the universe was created out of energies from "God", an entity that has intelligence and love. Then everything in existence would be imbued with signs of intelligence and love. Everything would be in place for us to learn about intelligence and love, to gain knowledge, and to enjoy the wonderful feeling that is to love and to be loved.

You can have this same purpose as an atheist, but then it is based on the choice to value these things - these things, things to discover, things to love, would just be there without reason. To choose our values in a certain way, would have no real consequences except our happiness and that of others. The same could be said about following the moral laws that are present in the universe - no real consequences except our happiness and that of others, but IMO the choice becomes much more clear cut, also because of being able to connect to a huge source of happiness.

If there is no intention behind the universe, our axiology (sorry just wanted to use that word) must be arbitrary. Or to put it in plain english: the only values we can have are the ones of our choice.

Saying our values are arbitrary just because our existence was not intentional is a non sequitur. And it's also contradicting the choice argument which is non arbitrary.
The values we have or how we go about our lives are always based on the choices we make. Whether it's someone else's intention to bring us into existence or not, based on our circumstances its we who determine what purpose we choose our limited existence for.

If the argument is that the universe's going to all end anyways so why bother, we can at least make a purpose for the finite amount of time we do have.

Well, yeah, we still have to choose whether or not to live in accordance with the purpose that is there for us, but we don't have to make our own purpose, we don't have to be in the dark about what life is about, when we can personally connect to a higher entity that tells us the purpose (not in words, but in feelings).

P.S. I'm taking the word arbitrary to mean "choice-based", not "random".

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

I did refute his argument quite easily with the standard, "What's the point if there is a god?"speech which I'm sure everyone's heard a million times. This whole thought process was just going through my head for like two seconds. Sorry if I didn't explain that!

I don't know what the "What's the point if there is a god?"-speech is. If it's just throwing back that retorical question at your theist friends real question, I don't think it really satisfies a person that sincerely asks: "What's the point of life without God [showing us the point]?"

This was atheist existentialism avant la lettre, where Camus saw this searching for higher meaning, as a doomed quest, an exercise in futility, where we would have to find our strength in accepting or even reveling in the futility/absurdity of life without a pre-existing moral standard.

I'm kind of confused what you mean by this. I might just be having a total derpy Marie moment, but I kind of don't get this. Not saying you did anything wrong, this confusion is all on me. Would you mind explaining it??

Well, since there can't be a higher standard than the standard we choose - since in a truly atheist universe, humans are the highest intelligences we know of, we can't rely on anything outside of ourselves-, whatever highest standard we choose will always be unsatisfying, since it started from an arbitary choice. So since we will never find a real higher meaning to life, other than what is based on our choice to give meaning to, we have to conclude that life has no intrinsic or real meaning, in other words life is absurd. Most people hate the idea that life wouldn't have a purpose, so in a way the struggle against the meaninglessness of life becomes the meaning itself - that is embracing the absurd. The myth of Sisyphus is a book that describes the pain of the tension between our desire for meaning and not being able to find true meaning, not being able to reach above our own heads, so to speak. Not being able to find any higher meaning, because we realize that whatever meaning we find, it's always limited to being something we made for ourselves.

Camus also saw as the first question a philosopher should ask himself the question "What's the point of living?" or "Why not commit suicide?",

Evolutionarily speaking, the point of living is to pass your genetic code on to the next generation. Why not commit suicide? Well, you enjoy living, don't you. You have to live to pass on your genes. You have to live to contribute to society and the general well-being of the world. You have to live to do anything, and as human beings we want to do things, to be productive, and (sorry to bring it up again) to reproduce.

Passing on genetic code is not the "point of life" according to evolution. Evolution doesn't tell us what's the point. It just describes that some genes go on to the next generation and others don't. It's merely descriptive. It's not "good" to reproduce, at least not according to the theory of evolution. It's just what leads to the genes surviving another generation. I saw brimstoneSalad make a post about this in a thread about predation and meat, I think he agrees with me here.
The other things you mention can give meaning to life, to enjoy it, to help others, etc. But you can still continue to ask, why would I do that? (Don't answer "that's obvious!" . If you continue to ask why would I do that, at every answer you give, you may see what your friend is getting at)

and realized there's no answer without God, except for to just embrace the absurdity of existence, the wandering, the not-knowing.

And why can't we embrace, as you put it, the absurdity of existence? Existence is absurd. Just think about it! Why can't we be comfortable in the knowledge that we don't know? There's no proof for a God, and no proof that there is no God (you can't prove a negative), which means that WE DON'T KNOW. No one does. (BTW, the Bible doesn't count as proof. It's the claim, not the evidence.)

That's a good question: why don't we want life to be absurd? I think human beings are naturally inclined to search for meaning and knowledge and to search for something that supposedly doesn't exist is frustrating.
I agree the Bible doesn't count for much, but what does count is a personal experience with God. In my own introductory thread I describe a phenomenological experiment, on how to experience God for yourself. It is to desire love from God, if such a being exists.