May 24, 2005
THE REDUCTION TO SELF:
Secularism and the meaningless life: Judeo-Christian values: Part XIII (Dennis Prager, May 24, 2005, Townhall)
Perhaps the most significant difference between [Judeo-Christian and secular values], though one rarely acknowledged by secularists, is the presence or absence of ultimate meaning in life. Most irreligious individuals, quite understandably, do not like to acknowledge the inevitable and logical consequence of their irreligiosity -- that life is ultimately purposeless.Secular and irreligious individuals raise two immediate objections:
1. Irreligious people, including atheists, are just as likely to have meaningful lives as any religious person. They need neither God nor Judaism nor Christianity nor any other religion to have meaning. [...]
The first objection denies a fact, not a subjective judgment: If there is no God who designed the universe and who cares about His creations, life is ultimately purposeless. This does not mean that people who do not believe in such a God cannot feel, or make up, a purpose and a meaning for their own lives. They do and they have to -- because the need for meaning is the greatest of all human needs. It is even stronger than the need for sex. There are people who lead chaste lives who achieve happiness, while no one who lacks a sense of purpose or meaning can achieve happiness.
Nevertheless, the fact that people feel that their lives are meaningful -- as a parent, a caregiver, an artist, or any of the myriad ways in which we feel we are doing something meaningful -- has no bearing on the question of whether life itself is ultimately meaningful. The two issues are entirely separate. A physician understandably views his healing of people as meaningful, but if he does not believe in God, he will have to honestly confront the fact that as meaningful as healing the day's patients has been, ultimately everything is meaningless because life itself is. In this sense, it is far better for an individual's peace of mind to be a poor peasant who believes in God than a successful neurosurgeon who does not.
If there is no God as Judeo-Christian religions understand Him, life is a meaningless random event. You and I are no more significant, our existence has no more meaning, than that of a rock on Mars. The only difference between us and Martian rocks is that we need to believe our existence has significance.
Perhaps the dilemma for the secularist is best expressed this way: you can tell me why you think your own life is meaningful and valuable to you, but why would it be to me? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 24, 2005 12:00 AM
"...: you can tell me why you think your own life is meaningful and valuable to you, but why would it be to me?"
Why do you think (as opposed to *believe*) that this is only true for secularists? A good man who is, say, a devout Buddhist might say that to a good man who is a Christian explaining how his faith provides meaning and direction to his life.
Yes, Buddhism can't undergird a decent society either.
Posted by: oj at May 24, 2005 11:38 AMOJ,
Imagine a 3rd party who, somehow, knew nothing of either Buddhism or Christianity (say an intelligent alien from Alpha Centauri), heard the Buddhist say likewise "Christianity can't undergird a decent society either."
Imagine also that this 3rd party seeks meaning in its own life. How can it chose between either way with nothing but these flat assertions of faith?
(And, yes, I do grant that the sickness of moral relativism may arise from the habit of imagining ourselves to be aliens from Alpha Centauri. But I don't see how anything but reason allows communication between people raised under different faiths.)
Posted by: clark at May 24, 2005 12:11 PM"...the need for meaning is the greatest of all human needs. It is even stronger than the need for sex."
Sorry. No. Not for me anyway.
Posted by: Bret at May 24, 2005 12:11 PMclark:
Only if Man is Created and Created in God's Image, endowed by Him with dignity, does life have meaning.
Posted by: oj at May 24, 2005 12:18 PMclark - some flat assertions of faith are more truthful than others.
Posted by: Shelton at May 24, 2005 12:40 PMoj, I won't argue this one with you except to leave you with this thought: perhaps, just perhaps, God created us differently such that your needs and my needs might not be identical.
Posted by: Bret at May 24, 2005 12:54 PMIs God's life meaningful to him? Who created God?
These are the type of questions that make me believe that even with science,
we have no more chance of ever understanding the universe than cats or dogs do.
It is vastly beyond or meager capabilities.
Only in some (hopefully) new life can we ever know.
Bret:
Nope. You need to feel your existence importan\t every second of every day. You don't feel the need for sex quite that much.
Posted by: oj at May 24, 2005 2:14 PMBret:
If your 'need' for meaning was less than your 'need' for sex, you would be copulating in your front yard, in the street, and on your desk at work. My guess is that you don't.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 24, 2005 2:53 PMPlus, Bret, if you "need" it as much as all that, it wouldn't seem to make much difference whether you get it or not, would it? Is it a need or a drug?
Posted by: Peter B at May 24, 2005 3:35 PMThe indecency of Prager's and Orrin's statement of faith is obvious to everyone but them.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 24, 2005 6:28 PMoj wrote: "You need to feel your existence importan\t every second of every day."
Why?
Does a dog need to feel its existence is important every second of every day? If not, why would I?
Posted by: Bret at May 24, 2005 7:04 PMYou aren't a dog?
Posted by: oj at May 24, 2005 7:42 PMEverybody on the Internet's a dog!
Posted by: Bret at May 24, 2005 7:45 PMI think the challenge that pairs with self-awareness is to create meaning, rather than have it imposed from outside.
Posted by: Brett McSweeney at May 26, 2005 4:48 AM