Alonzo Fyfe: Atheist Preacher?
Posted in Common Sense Atheism, Thinking Critically on | 3 minutes | 27 Comments →
Enter Alonzo Fyfe:
Ultimately, when we think about “meaning” and “permanence”, I invite you to think of a woman devoting huge amounts of time each day to the care of sick and abused children, providing them comfort and love, seeing that they are well fed and protected.
Then, I want you to imagine pulling back a bit from this image and seeing that woman merely going through the motion of caring for children in a large and empty room. While she insists that the children she comforts, protects, feeds, and teaches are real, they are figments of her imagination.
This illustrates the “meaning” that we find in a life devoted to the service of a God. There are those who look at this and see that it provides no meaning at all. Yet, when one comforts, protects, feeds, and teaches a real child and improves the quality of a real human life, this has real meaning and real purpose.
You cannot get real value from an imaginary God.
Compared to this, the rabbit has a more meaningful and fulfilling life. The bunnies that it raises and protects are real. [-Alonzo Fyfe]
Aside from the obvious bigotry against believers, Alonzo’s “argument” uses the same fallacious reasoning as William Lane Craig’s we addressed yesterday. The only difference is that they’re on opposite sides of the same coin: Craig argues that atheists can’t have real meaning or purpose in life without God. Fyfe argues that theists can’t have real meaning or purpose with God.
Where does the “preacher” thing come into play?
There is no God, so there is no way to fulfill a desire to serve God. There is no God, so no God has given us a list of commandments to obey or a list of requirements that give our lives “meaning” and “purpose”. [-Alonzo Fyfe]
Does Alonzo know that? Of course not. He believes that, and here he is – like any good fundamentalist preacher – pushing his beliefs on the rest of us; using his beliefs to sustain truth claims about the real world we all live in; and – in the case of desirism – using his beliefs as justification to shower condemnation on those who do not share them. Did Luke object to Craig’s argument? Of course! Did Luke object to Alonzo’s argument? Of course not!
Argh! Can there be any greater sins against rationalism?
It troubles me that these guys take themselves seriously, and even more so that other atheists take them seriously! I would find this whole thing wildly hilarious were it not for the huge disparity between approval of Craig’s arguments and approval of Fyfe’s. However, I think that because Fyfe is an atheist, many atheists let their firewalls down. As a result, when Alonzo slaps a Scarlet A sticker on Craig’s bottle of premium grade snake oil, the virus of illogic slips in undetected.
I thought atheists were supposed to be, you know, rational?
It’s not all bad, though. Some clearly are. There were a few people who called nonsense on Alonzo’s claim, as you can see in the thread. I find that somewhat reassuring.
What do you think?
What, exactly, is the difference between the preacher who says life lacks real meaning without God, and the preacher who says life lacks real meaning with God?
bossmanham
says...CL,
I think you’re making the same mistake as Craig’s critics (which I guess is obvious if you agree with them, lol).
Craig’s claim is that ultimate purpose does not exist on atheism, which you agree with. That we can make up purpose for ourselves isn’t really at issue. Sure we can make up purpose, but what does it amount to? Nothing. All we’re doing is pretending that things matter. That my flat tire makes a difference in my life is not the same as it being purposeful. What we have on atheism is a bunch of chance, purposeless events that have culminated in what we see today. How do we derive an ultimate meaning from this scenario? We just have to pretend that our lives have meaning to make ourselves feel better, but that isn’t rational, it’s irrational.
So while people may make up some sort of internal purpose on atheism, once they’re gone so is that purpose. Since everyone will someday be gone, all of those pretend purposes don’t amount to a hill of beans. They’re all gone and this purposeless universe will decay into a cold and lifeless state.
I think Craig has a point.
cl
says...Well, it shouldn’t be obvious, unless of course you’ve lumped all of Craig’s critics into a single category. Have you?
Correct, with the caveat that “ultimate” is a meaningless word there. I agree that overarching telos and/or transcendent purpose don’t exist without God and/or an afterlife.
Nope. That’s wrong. You’re making a subjective value judgment of your own and holding everyone else accountable to it. Who are you to judge another’s purpose as “nothing” or “pretend?” IMO, you’re making the same mistake as Alonzo Fyfe did. Alonzo claims theists “pretend” their devotion to God matters. Would you accept that? Of course not. You would say it really matters. Yet, you claim atheists “pretend” things matter without God.
For the atheist who “makes up purpose,” that purpose matters to them in the same way devotion to God matters to you: it amounts to much more than “nothing.” There are literally hordes of atheists who do humanitarian work, and they would not agree that this “amounts to nothing” or “lacks ultimate purpose” or “is pretend.”
I agree, but that does not mean that atheists “pretend” things matter.
Well, if I were an atheist, and I had a daughter, I might derive meaning from this scenario by affirming that my daughter’s well-being has “ultimate” meaning and purpose for me, and that such is by no means “pretend.”
So what? That doesn’t mean they are “pretending” to have purpose and/or meaning in life. They might concede your point that their purpose doesn’t persist after death, but so what? The atheist already implicitly accepts that.
Again, so what? That doesn’t mean there was no meaning or purpose while they were here.
I think he has a point, too. It’s just that he lacks a cogent argument or any compelling evidence to rest on. I can see why his argument really gets under certain atheist’s skin. He essentially declares their purpose null and it comes across as inconsiderate at best.
bossmanham
says...No, I’m looking at the universe in an objective manner. If there is no God who created the universe with some purpose in mind, that would mean that the universe is purposeless. Any purpose we invent isn’t real; it’s subjective.
If God exists, then it does matter. If God does not exist, then it doesn’t. That’s a separate question.
That’s not true. If God exists, then my devotion to Him does matter in an objective way. I am devoting my life to the ultimate reality who imbues life with purpose.
If atheism is true, then not only does my devotion to a god who doesn’t exist not really matter on any sort of objective scale, but neither does the atheists disdain for my belief or his correctness in his.
What makes humanitarian work worth anything if God does not exist? What is it that gives these poor people who can’t, at the time, do anything to advance society? It seems that you’re assuming they have some worth. I don’t see how that’s so on atheism.
Well if it doesn’t really matter, but is something they’re making up for themselves, then how isn’t it pretend?
Sure it is. She doesn’t really have any meaning or purpose, the atheist is just making up some purpose for her.
It seems to me that you’re giving the atheist too much credit here. Any purpose they dream up isn’t real in any sort of objective sense. They’re just pretending it is. I can’t see how we can construe that as real purpose or meaning.
cl
says...I understand, and, I agree to that claim, exactly as you stated it. However, that claim does not logically entail the claim WLC makes – that “ultimately nothing really matters if there is no God” – nor does it logically entail the claim you made here – that without God we’re simply “pretending that things matter.”
Well – presuming the “it” in both sentences refers to devotion to God – it matters either way. Even if God does not exist, my devotion to God still matters to me. I would not be “pretending” my devotion to God matters. Rather, it would really matter to me – just like it spending Christmas with my family really matters to me.
No, it’s true, and the key words are “to them” and “to you.” You say that your devotion would matter in an objective way if God exists, because you would be devoting your life to the “ultimate” reality [and I take “ultimate” to mean something like “final” there]. Well, guess what: if God doesn’t exist, then the atheist also devotes his or her life to the “ultimate” or “final” reality — this one.
Of course it wouldn’t matter that way. In the same way, it doesn’t matter that the sky is not green. If your response is something along the lines of “Huh?” — then you know exactly how I feel. My point is, whether God exists or not, your devotion to God matters to you in the same way devotion to X matters to an atheist. Now, if God exists and is pleased by devotion, then your devotion to God might matter to God more than the atheist’s devotion to X matters to God — but that’s besides my point — which to reiterate, is that an atheist can imbibe “real” purpose and meaning in their life. That said purpose and meaning will not persist does not negate it.
Simply put, an agent that values humanitarian work makes it worth something to that agent.
If by “they” you mean the “poor people” in question, no, I do not assume they “have worth.” They cannot “have” worth because “worth” is not something that can be possessed. Value cannot exist without a valuer. All I’m saying is that some people value humanitarian work, and that this matters to them. They are not pretending.
To pretend is to feign, fake or mimic. The atheist who values humanitarian work does not feign, fake or mimic a preference for humanitarian work. Rather, they really do value humanitarian work. To imply that they “pretend” really – IMHO – comes across as inconsiderate and chauvinistic. Imagine yourself as an atheist hearing yourself. How would you respond?
Consider your language there. This is the same problem I criticized Luke about. Though sufficient to convey a thought in conversational English, to say that an object can or cannot “have meaning or purpose” is nonsensical. Value cannot exist outside a valuer. There is no “thing” called “value” or “meaning” that agents or objects can possess. Rather, agents assign value to objects and/or states of affairs. In the daughter example, I would not be “making up a purpose for her.” Rather, I would be evaluating my own life, and probably asking myself: What do I deem the highest good? What shall be my purpose in life? If my answer was my daughter’s well-being, then I make that my purpose.
Now, if I were making a claim that “the ultimate purpose in life is to value family,” that would be different. Under atheism, I do not see how anyone could sustain such a claim. However, if God created us with the ultimate purpose of valuing family, then my claim that “the ultimate purpose in life is to value family” can be sustained. In such a case, there would be an overarching telos, and I would be within its jurisdiction.
All I’m going to grant you is that if God exists and has decreed purpose for us, then anyone who assigns themselves a purpose outside of God’s is in error. Still, that does not mean such people “pretend” to find meaning or purpose in their lives.
I see what you and Craig are getting at though, trust me. I think it’s just coming out wildly wrong. I hope that makes sense, and I’m more than happy to re-explain anything if it doesn’t.
Garren
says...If you have to ask, then I consider it a very good thing you believe God tells you to do caring things for other people.
bossmanham
says...I understand, and, I agree to that claim, exactly as you stated it. However, that claim does not logically entail the claim WLC makes – that “ultimately nothing really matters if there is no God” – nor does it logically entail the claim you made here – that without God we’re simply “pretending that things matter.”
Sure it does. If there’s no ultimate purpose, then that does entail that ultimately, there is no purpose. They’re logically equivalent statements.
What we’re talking about here is actual objective meaning and purpose. Craig, nor I here, argue that you can’t make up a purpose for yourself. What we’re arguing is that purpose has no objective ground. If there is no God, then what I do when I pray or worship is meaningless. There is nothing accomplished in the act, and there is no meaning to it. It might matter to me but that is something I’m inventing for myself. It has no real ultimate meaning.
I understand that without ultimate purpose, someone can make up their own. No one is arguing against that. But if there is no God, then the final and ultimate reality is mindless, purposeless, and meaningless, as you’ve agreed. So if that is the final reality for us without God, then what I’ve claimed is true. If the atheist devotes their life to that, then their life is mindless, purposeless, and meaningless.
We agree on this subjective meaning that one makes up, but you still haven’t shown how this isn’t a pretend meaning. Most people think that true meaning is something that is beyond themselves. For something to be purposeful, it must transcend their meager existence. If that is the case, then my valuing humanitarian work has no real meaning beyond making myself feel good. But in an objective sense, it has no value because no one has value in that sense on atheism.
An atheist who hasn’t realized this hasn’t thought his worldview through. When you make something up, it is something you have contrived in your mind. Lots of little kids make up imaginary friends who give them some sort of personal pleasure. So, to them, this friend exists. But in a real objective sense, this friend doesn’t exist. The same would be true for the atheist who thinks their life, or anyone else’s, has some sort of purpose and meaning. It doesn’t beyond what they have made up for themselves, consciously or not. If that isn’t pretend, I don’t know what is.
As far as this being insulting, I don’t care. A lot of people become insulted when the logical conclusion of their worldview is revealed. They need to think it through. The existential atheists got it right, why can’t today’s? Because today’s atheists aren’t being consistent.
While I may take issue with your definitions here, I don’t think it’s even relevant. If God doesn’t exist, then there is no ultimate valuer who exists eternally to actually place value in something. Ergo, this person’s daughter doesn’t really have objective value. It’s a value that the father or mother has dreamed up for her. Just like a little kid dreams up an imaginary friend. There isn’t any real value, meaning, or purpose. It’s pretend.
I think we agree in principle, I just think you’re missing the importance of the objective sense of meaning and purpose that I’m trying to convey. If God exists, the real meaning and purpose exists in an objective sense because God’s values exist in spite of what individuals think. If God doesn’t exist, then the ultimate is valueless, meaningless, and purposeless. We can imagine purpose for ourselves on a subjective level, but it’s a pretend meaning and purpose because those things are supposed to have an objective meaning.
bossmanham
says...Garren,
So you don’t know either, eh?
That’s my point. If there is no God, then it has no real meaning. It’s just one conglomeration of atoms affecting another conglomeration of atoms. Objectively, there is no meaning to that act.
Garren
says...bossmanham,
Meaning and purpose are things that exist at the level of personal beings. I agree they don’t exist at the level of atoms. I often suspect Craig is really just skeptical that personal beings can exist in a world without God, but instead argues that the world can’t contain properties which rely on personal beings, e.g. valued-valuer relationships.
If I value something, it therefore has value to me. If something is instrumentally valuable for something else, it therefore has value in that role. It’s a simple language mistake (reification) to think ‘value’ is the primary thing which must exist on its own.
Garren
says...Er, that ‘instrumental’ bit was stated tautologically. Correct to: If something facilitates or is necessary for something else, it has instrumental value in that role.
And, cl, I agree that Fyfe appears to be making a mistake by ignoring all other kinds of value in the person’s life he is claiming is so dreary (the mistaken Theist). Most people who do things for their God aren’t only doing them for their God.
cl
says...Garren,
As do I.
YES, thank you. That’s exactly what I thought, too. In my experience, atheists don’t generally lament the fact that no “overarching telos” or “transcendent purpose” exists. To hurl at them the accusation that “their lives lack meaning” is ridiculous and rude. The theist who makes such claims projects their own estimations of value onto the atheist – in the same way Alonzo projected his own estimations of value onto the “mistaken” theist.
I agree, and I think it’s much worse than that. It’s as if Fyfe has thrown all his talk about rationalism and evidence out the window. He honestly strikes me as a bit reckless. I mean, using his beliefs to deduce truth claims about the real world, and then projecting them onto everybody else? Gimme a break.
Anyways, thanks again. I appreciate your input.
cl
says...bossmanham,
Hmmm….
Yeah, those two statements are logically equivalent. The problem is, those aren’t the statements I gave you. Here’s the transaction in full:
Do you see the difference between what I wrote and how you responded?
Sure, “meaningless” in the sense that you wouldn’t be adhering to a purpose decreed by somebody outside of yourself. So what? If there is no God, of what negative import is the lack of a purpose decreed thus?
There may or may not be something accomplished. That doesn’t entail that anyone is “pretending” it matters. If X really matters to you, you’re not pretending. Further, even if God doesn’t exist, you can still accomplish something in the act of praying. The very fact of a positive thought stream – presuming your prayers are positive – has been shown to provide tangible benefits to agents. And no, I’m not talking about prayer studies.
Okay… then, do you also understand that lack of “ultimate” purpose does not preclude “real” meaning for any given agent, unless of course you force “decreed by God” as the only acceptable definition of “real”?
Of course, but so what? Agents still exist, objectively – with or without God. Agents are not mindless. Agents imbibe purpose and meaning into their lives, and they do not “pretend” to do so. They would only be “pretending” if they tried to elevate what they value as some sort of “overarching telos” or “transcendent purpose.” Then – and only then – would be even reasonably accurate to say they would be pretending. Even then, if the honestly believed in their error, they wouldn’t be pretending. They’d just be wrong.
Well, I’ve already explained – as has Garren – that you use of language is problematic for us here. Lack of ultimate purpose doesn’t entail that atheists “only pretend” to value that which they value.
Of course there’s not. And – again – so what?
Yes, I have: you’re just not listening. To pretend is to fake or feign. The atheist who values humanitarian work does not fake or feign. It’s that incredibly simple. If they were to decree something like “thou shalt value humanitarian work” for all people, then they might be pretending.
Those who do implicitly define “true meaning” in the same myopic sense you do: “objective meaning” i.e. outside of yourself. I would define “true meaning” as any instance where an agent derives meaning from some thing or state of affairs.
Right, when you make some thing up. My point is, “value” is not a “thing,” it’s a process that occurs between agents and things. So, you can’t “make it up” in the same way you “make up” an imaginary friend. The child who makes up an imaginary friend literally invents something that doesn’t exist objectively. The atheist who says “I value humanitarian work” does not do that. To contrast, such an atheist refers to a real-world [read: objective] entity: his or herself, and the fact that they value humanitarian work.
I can agree with you that, in my experience, many of today’s atheists have views that aren’t consistent with their worldviews. That’s not the point.
You cannot “place” value “into” any “thing”. Value is not a thing. IMO, value should not be used as a noun in complex philosophical discourse. Value is a process that occurs, and that process continues to occur for atheists at the “local level.” If you get the programming reference, cool. If not, well…
I’m not missing the importance. I agree there. You’re missing the fact that “lack of real meaning and purpose decreed by God” doesn’t mean atheists “pretend.”
Honestly, this is such a word mess that I’m out of steam. I strongly suggest rewording your argument and taking these criticisms into consideration. If you will take the time to write your next response with zero variants of the phrases, “have meaning” and “have value,” I’m willing to work at this some more. That is, only use “value” as a verb and maybe things will snap into place. If not, well, whatever. I tried, and I’m willing to leave it at that.
bossmanham
says...Cl,
Actually, I have a lot of trouble believing that’s possible, but I understand what you’re trying to get at.
I think this runs exactly parallel to the imaginary friend example. Something doesn’t exist, someone dreams it up, then they claim it actually does exist.
I’m not using pretend in the sense of purposeful lying. I mean that to pretend is to make something up in your mind and treat it as objectively real. This runs quite parallel to the moral argument. Only if God exists can there be an objective morality. Sure, people can make up morality for themselves, but it isn’t real in the sense that it actually takes form outside of themselves or applies to anyone else. In that sense, it is meaningless. No one is bound by it. The person simply pretends that it’s somehow binding for them. In that sense, the atheist is faking that there is meaning.
Same with purpose and meaning.
It seems as if you’re referring to value either as in material value or worth of some sort. Craig makes it clear in his written work that the value he speaks of in reference to this argument is moral values. So this is really not even at issue.
The atheist is making up something that doesn’t exist objectively, namely the value of humanitarian work. The disanalogy happens when you say that because the atheist exists objectively this value becomes meaningful. It may be meaningful to him, but how is that different than what the child is doing? The child exists objectively too and has invented a friend. If this logic were to hold here, we’d have to say that friend is real somehow, since the child exists objectively. The friend is real to the child, but what on earth does that have to do with anything? The child has made something up. It’s pretend. That’s why I call what the atheist does pretend. They make it up and apply it to themselves.
I was using it in the sense of God valuing something, which would “place value” into that thing.
—
I think what’s really coming to the surface here is a hint of post-modernism; that we have the ability to create our own reality in some way. An individual finds meaning in something, therefore it has meaning. But that isn’t a robust meaning at all. It’s a transitory meaning that was made up by the individual. I just don’t see how that’s different than the child inventing an imaginary friend. Meaning, purpose, and values become our imaginary friends.
I’m also not trying to be difficult. I really see a distinction between real (objective) meaning in life, which I think requires a transcendent source, and meaning that we make up in our minds. One is objectively important and matters to everyone in spite of what they think, the other dies out in the extinction of the universe. That is the important aspect to the argument, and the sad state of affairs if God does not exist.
tmp
says...@bossmanham
“Something doesn’t exist, someone dreams it up, then they claim it actually does exist.”
I am and atheist, and when I say something is meaningful to me, I mean that I feel it is meaningful to me. That feeling certainly exists, and I’m not making any claims that it is more than my feeling.
“I’m not using pretend in the sense of purposeful lying.”
You should use ‘subjective’, perhaps. If you say ‘pretend’ you are coming across like you are accusing atheists of making claims that are not true.
“Only if God exists can there be an objective morality.”
Why? If objective morality can exist at all, I see no reason why it could not exists as a stand alone version.
“No one is bound by it.”
If no one does not subjectively care, no one would be bound by God’s morality either.
“The person simply pretends that it’s somehow binding for them.”
I’m a subjectivist, and I in no way pretend that I’m somehow bound. I simply do what I feel is right.
“That’s why I call what the atheist does pretend. They make it up and apply it to themselves.”
I think it should properly be called being subjective. Calling it pretend is a bit like calling a black person a nigger. It’s technically accurate, but…
“An individual finds meaning in something, therefore it has meaning.”
It has meaning for that individual, and that is what is important.
“It’s a transitory meaning that was made up by the individual.”
And that is all that matters to that individual.
“I just don’t see how that’s different than the child inventing an imaginary friend.”
It’s not, really, expect the individual involved is better aware of the subjectiveness. It serves a purpose. What is the problem?
“One is objectively important and matters to everyone”
Actually, objective meaning, if it exist at all, is only important to those that (subjectively) care. Meaning does not do anything in itself.
“and the sad state of affairs if God does not exist.”
It’s sad why, exactly?
cl
says...It depends on the dynamics of the situation.
If a child comes up to you and says, “Hey, this is my friend Bill,” and there isn’t anybody else but the two of you in the room, and that child persists in his or her notion that Bill is real, then yeah – the option that they might actually be perceiving something real notwithstanding – I would say the child is making something up that does not exist “objectively” [i.e. “out there” beyond our minds]. I would not say they were pretending, though, because this child really believes Bill is there.
Now, consider two atheists, and God not existing:
Atheist 1 comes to [what appears to be] the correct conclusion of his or her beliefs: there is no “overarching telos” or “transcendent purpose” or “ultimate meaning” as you and Craig – for reasons unbeknownst to me – still continue to express it. Next, atheist 1 looks around and concludes, “Well, since there is no purpose ‘out there’ for me, what shall be my purpose? I suppose it shall be humanitarian work.” Then – and here is the crucial point – so long as Atheist 1 realizes that his or her purpose was arbitrarily decreed, and to the extent Atheist 1 refrains from touting his or her purpose as “ultimate meaning,” Atheist 1 is not pretending anything.
However, consider Atheist 2. Like Atheist 1, Atheist 2 also decides to devote their life to humanitarian work. However, unlike Atheist 1, Atheist 2 gets a little too gung-ho about it, and jumps to the erroneous conclusion that humanitarian work is our “ultimate purpose” in life. Atheist 2 would be in error, and may or may not be pretending [depending on whether or not they really believe their error].
Unlike the child with the imaginary friend, Atheist 1 is not claiming that anything “actually does exist” in any objective sense.
I understand that, and was invoking the principle of charity. It is precisely because I didn’t think that’s what you actually meant that I advised against use of the word pretend. Anyways, I agree that “making something up in your mind and treating it as objectively real” is a legitimate definition of pretend. However, as the aforementioned example hopefully made crystal-clear, Atheist 1 isn’t pretending anything. They aren’t claiming that their purpose “objectively exists.” They are simply saying, “Humanitarian work is what I value most.”
Atheist 2 would be guilty of pretending, IMHO, and, for what it’s worth, I think there is a strong parallel between Atheist 2 and what Alonzo is doing with desirism. But I don’t want to get into that right now.
Of course, and, so long as they acknowledge this like Atheist 1 in my example, what’s the problem?
Atheist 1 isn’t “pretending” their purpose is binding in the “objective” sense you’re describing, though. They are simply saying, “This is the purpose I’ve chosen for myself,” and so long as they keep that in proper scope, again, what’s the problem? How are they pretending?
That would be Atheist 2 in my example. Atheist 1 isn’t doing that. Atheist 1 isn’t arriving at the mistaken conclusion that the “value of humanitarian work” exists objectively. This is why I suggest avoiding the use of “value” as a noun. There is no “value of” humanitarian work outside the agents affected by it.
I explained all that but I’ll explain it again. If the child is claiming the friend “really exists objectively,” then yes – they are inventing a friend. However, if Atheist 1 does not claim that their purpose “really exists objectively,” they aren’t inventing anything. Rather, they simply describe a true state of affairs: an agent [Atheist 1] exists, and said agent values humanitarian work.
And I’m saying, you shouldn’t – IMHO. To “pretend” is to fake or feign. Atheist 1 isn’t faking or feigning anything. Atheist 2 might be. If rigorous philosophy is the goal here, I don’t think we should paint in such broad strokes, especially if we’re going to be loose with language.
No, it wouldn’t. If God values something, then God values something – period. Value cannot exist without a valuer. To use the phrase “place value into something” – though sufficient for everyday conversation – is rather atrocious, philosophically. It practically begs for confusion and misunderstanding. Language is everything here.
I’m not getting the impression that you are. Rather, we’re just two people with strong convictions trying to do our best to persuade one another. It’s all good in my book bossmanham.
So do I. The difference – as far as I can see – is that I object to using this distinction as the basis for claims like, “Without God, nothing really matters,” or, “Without God, life is meaningless.”
I wholeheartedly agree, with the caveat that I would replace “matters to everyone” with something like “binding to everyone.” If there is an objective purpose decreed by God and somebody chooses to disregard it, then it doesn’t matter to them. They will still be affected by their choice, however.
Well, that such would be a “sad state of affairs” is your own subjective opinion. If God does not exist, there is no reason that everybody ought to share your opinion that an atheist universe constitutes a “sad state of affairs.”
Anyways, good chattin’, I think we did better with this transaction than the previous ones, and I hope you have an awesome Christmas.
Garren
says...bossmanham,
If God exists and values something, I agree that thing would therefore have value to God. There’d be a true valuing relationship between God’s mind and the thing being valued.
However, I would disagree if you intend, e.g: God values something and this alters the standalone properties of the thing so that it now has value as a standalone/non-relational/intrinsic property.
If you’ll excuse the anthropomorphizing, the latter strikes me as saying “Chocolate ice cream is objectively favorite…since chocolate ice cream is God’s favorite kind. As if God favoring it over all other ice cream changes something in chocolate ice cream’s standalone properties. To extend the analogy, we could say anyone else declaring french vanilla ice cream their favorite is making things up that aren’t real (because a human favoring vanilla ice cream obviously wouldn’t change the standalone properties of ice cream).
We could certainly pay special attention to things God values, just as we might pay special attention to God’s favorite ice cream (or the wife’s favorite flower, for that matter). But that doesn’t mean value constituted by God’s valuing is of a completely different nature than value constituted by you or I valuing.
bossmanham
says...I’ve been on a short hiatus from blogging, and responding to blog comments, but I’ll just make this one quickly.
CL,
I think you and I agree for the most part and it may be getting lost somewhere. Perhaps I don’t give the credence to personal subjective forms of purpose and meaning that would be the only ones that exist if atheism is true that you do. I’m not sure. I grant that atheists can make up purpose and meaning for themselves, which would make the whole process relativistic and be about as useful as relativistic morality. But I think this conversation typically has in mind a meaning and purpose that is beyond that. So when Craig says “nothing really matters” on atheism, the ‘really’ refers to objectivity. Just as the tree in my front yard really exists, so does this meaning and purpose. That can’t be said about atheistic meaning and purpose, and in that light I stand by my statement that it’s pretend; conjured up in the atheists mind for him/herself.
On the semantic discussion on value, I’m not sure where I stand on that. On objective moral values, which Craig is talking about in this argument, I think it’s obvious that they don’t exist without God.
I’m not sure if you’ve read this clarification by Craig or not. I think it’s helpful.
tmp,
I grant that you can do this, but I think it’s confusing what the argument is claiming, and is akin to a child’s pretend friend.
In that they make up meaning for themselves, they’re telling the truth. That’s fine, but it’s the “made up” aspect that I’m trying to pinpoint with this language. I think it’s appropriate.
Sure they would. God would hold everyone accountable in spite of what they think.
tmp
says...“I think it’s appropriate.”
No, it is not. Pretend implies, that something is purported to be something that it is not. If you call me a pretender, or my values a pretend, you are calling me a liar. My subjectivism is not any more a pretend than your theism. That is, I make a subjective claim and I outright state that it is subjective. You make a objective claim, but it is unverified and probably unverifiable. Both are more than a pretend, in different ways.
“Sure they would. God would hold everyone accountable in spite of what they think.”
I don’t believe I have ever hear a verifiable account of God stepping in and stopping an immoral act. God holding or not holding someone accountable does not stop someone from acting, if they choose to. Now, God physically restraining someone would do the trick.
“No it’s not. I’m not referring to a person and calling them pretend, I’m calling an idea a person has pretend. Calling someone a racial ephithet is attacking the person, not an idea.”
Calling my idea a pretend(unless I intend it as a pretend, of course) is calling me a liar. There seems to be some miscommunication between what you intended and what I understood, but since Cl also seems to have read it like me, it might be best to use some clearer expression.
“Ideas are up for insult IMO. If that offends you, perhaps you should avoid the arena of ideas”
Actually, I generally find it a good idea to try and avoid insulting anyone where possible. You are OK if I insult your ideas in a way that implies you are dishonest for holding them?
cl
says...bossmanham,
So do I. I think we agree on all but one of the ontological implications of the argument, i.e. the “real world” differences between overarching telos and the absence thereof. Where I think we diverge is in the conclusions we draw from there, and also the way we state those conclusions, and in our positions on atheist purpose as you said.
That’s what’s so frustrating to me. In doing so, he lays a semantic minefield and I completely understand why so many atheists view this particular argument as specious. If that’s what Craig really means, that’s what Craig ought to say.
I disagree, and I actually think my disagreement might be founded on something more than a simple dislike of semantics here. I agree that overarching telos exists in the same way the tree in your front yard does, but I think the same can be said about atheist meaning and purpose. What is the overarching telos but God’s purpose? What is God’s purpose but a desire that God has? In the same way God’s desire anchors to God, an atheist’s desire anchors to the atheist. It is just as “real” as God’s purpose, and the tree in your front yard.
Now, if you want to say that the atheist’s purpose cannot be as “true” or “correct” or “sovereign” or “universally binding” as God’s, that’s a different discussion, and I’d probably tend to agree with you in all aspects. But as far as the ontology of what’s actually going on here, the atheist’s purpose exists in the same way God’s does. This is why I disagree so strongly to implying that an atheist’s purpose is “pretend.” It is not “pretend” at all. So when tmp says,
…I have no choice but to agree.
Check out Garren’s blog, he had a great primer on it IMO. My only concern on value as it relates here is that value cannot exist without a valuer. I also urge people to avoid using value as a noun in philosophical discussions about morality.
As do I.
No offense but that “clarification” is a linguistic trainwreck waiting to happen. Craig never articulates exactly what he means by absurd, and given the common definitions, it is possible for his claim to be both true and false at the same time, so something seems amiss.
However, to take things in a different direction…
How so? You’ve definitely piqued my interest there.
tmp,
That’s where we part ways. I think you got it right the second time, when you said,
I see no correlation whatsoever between the racial epithet and bossmanham’s use of the word pretend.
bossmanham
says...tmp,
No, it means I think you’re wrong about your conclusion. Lying implies some sort of intent to deceive, which I don’t think the atheist necessarily has.
bossmanham
says...CL,
On the Trinity, if we are to say that God is valuable, it seems to me that if God is only one person, then there is no one else valuing Him, which would create a problem with God being valuable. But since every member of the Godhead values the other members, that would mean that we can say God is valuable with no problem. That’s a quick, rough summary of what I have in mind,
tmp
says...@bossmanham
“No, it means I think you’re wrong about your conclusion.”
Ok. We are simply using a different meaning on word “pretend”. However, if you do it again somewhere else, odds are that you are going to have to explain it again.
@cl
“I see no correlation whatsoever between the racial epithet and bossmanham’s use of the word pretend.”
Ok, I put that poorly. My bad. I meant that “pretend” correctly implies subjectivity but also a lie. And “nigger” correctly implies a black person but is also a racial epithet. That’s why I wrote “a bit like”, but it was poorly expressed. There is probably some cultural disconnect with sensitivity to racial epithets at work, also. Again, sorry.
tmp
says...@bossmanham
Agh, my brain is broken today. Let’s try this again.
“No, it means I think you’re wrong about your conclusion.”
I don’t believe I claimed any conclusion. Simply that “I believe X”, rather than “I believe X, and it’s more than simply my belief”, which would be a pretend(since I do not believe that it’s more than just my belief). So what conclusion, exactly, are you talking about?
cl
says...Hey there. While I don’t mean to poke and prod, I was wondering if either of you had any suggestions or requests for blog topics? If so, maybe you can add them here.
bossmanham,
As I explained way up in this thread, pretend means to fake or feign. Do you think atheists fake or feign their purpose? If yes, what’s the difference between that and calling them a liar? In both cases, an intent to deceive is present.
We can say that anything is valuable with no problem. Literally, anything that exists is capable of being valued given some intent. Even if God existed all alone, God’s existence could still be valuable to God, so I really don’t see how any of this constitutes an argument for the Trinity.
tmp,
Ah, gotcha. At least now I see what you had in mind.
J. K. Jones
says...What of the nihilists? What of Camus or Niche or Sarte? What of their arguments?
cl
says...J. K. Jones,
Can you elaborate a bit on who that was intended for, and what context? Was that for tmp? bossmanham? Myself? How do the questions relate to our discussion?
J. K. Jones
says...cl,
I was refering back to the original post. If Craig is wrong, so are some of the other atheists who have basically taken the same route in their thinking.
cl
says...J. K. Jones
Ah, okay. Gotcha. Thinking…