Ep. 88: Objective meaning, value, and purpose

[Emery]

Happy new year everyone! It's time to take the bull by the horns. Our own Tony English has recommended "On Guard" as a good primer into the arguments of apologetics heavyweight William Lane Craig. So we begin with chapter 2, which argues that without God, we can have no objective meaning, value, and purpose in our lives.

[gary_s]

Tony still doesn't understand. He states on the podcast that atheists get upset when he states that there is an objective meaning or value in existence and that it is linked to god. But he confuses the reaction of us non-believers. Any disapproval of this philosophy has nothing to do with an observed insult from him that we don't have meaningful lives. The disapproval comes in the reality that not everyone agrees with this. His take on objectivity is his opinion, but I've not heard any real support for it.

Regardless of his beliefs about objectivity or meaning, various things in life will be meaningful to different people and whether or not they are objective is irrelevant. Meaning in life is what humans live for. We may not all have found profound values or meaning, but whatever we have is what we have. All Tony really offers in defense of this philosophy is that the only REAL value in life is to worship god. That is about as unconvincing an argument as you can make. If a person attempts to find this meaning and doesn't, then to this person, this meaning does not exist. I submit that ALL values are subjective to the person.

[gary_s]

As I listened through the podcast, I began to wonder why Tony is so obsessed with this idea of objective value. Why is it so important? Even if a person is a believer, he will inevitably have to develop values that are subjective to him. His life will have meaning that is subjective to him. Even his value of a creator because not everyone will share this value and there is no human way to know for certain which creator-belief is true and which is not. I'm fine with saying that there may be an objective meaning out there somewhere, but why does that have to be the only thing of importance to us? Why wouldn't god WANT us to find or own values and meaning that make our lives worth living? Why would he insist that we find this one and only "objective" meaning in life (which isn't very meaningful at all if you ask me), even though we may not live a life that puts us in a position to experience it at all. To me this philosophy doesn't even make sense from a Christian context. I never saw god as this limited. To me this is no better than picking a door offered by monty hall. Yes, objectively, there is a goat behind some doors and a million dollars behind one, but we can't see behind these doors. Why is it so awful that we should find some meaning in dressing up and playing the game and not so much in getting the million dollars? I mean, what's the point of such a game of life? Finding the "secret" answer is not worth much really in this context.

[humanguy]

I have to say that aside from Tony's repeated "That's a good question, I'll have to think about it" responses (and I have a sneaking feeling that he won't do much thinking about it), what I took away was an almost sneering dislike for humanity on Tony's part. It isn't enough for him that for the most part we humans have arrived at a mutually-shared subjective concept of meaning, value, and purpose in our lives, which, as Emory rightly pointed out, amounts to real objective values that are intended to promote human welfare. No, instead Tony wanted to focus on what the Nazis did, as if that's an example of bad behavior that damns all of humanity.

[mitchellmckain]

As I listened through the podcast, I began to wonder why Tony is so obsessed with this idea of objective value. Why is it so important?

This is a basic tool for everyone who want to impose their values on other people. He wants to say people cannot just value whatever they choose they have to value the things that Tony values and so his god becomes his tool by which to say that it is only what he says his god values that really has any value.

My approach to this is a bit different, to say that we can of course value anything we choose. But just because we can make different choices does not mean that all the choices are equal. The pursuit of some values will prove to be more shallow and less capable of providing any lasting happiness that other things. God certainly knows what values are most worth pursuing and which are temporary. But again this goes back to my previous disputes with Tony over divine relativism again. Tony saying that values are just relative to whatever his god says (or is) and me saying that there are reasons for the differences, and thus that not only are these reasons that we might happen to understand on our own (as far as we know) but that we can actually discover many of these differences for ourselves the hard way without any help from the gnostic legalism that Tony equates with Christianity.

I never saw god as this limited.

Tell me about it! This is the inevitable result of what legalists do when they taylor god and righteousness to a door at which they can be the gatekeepers. The result is a god that is as small a their own minds.

[scomsjw]

In “The Naked Ape” Desmond Morris made a good job of stepping outside humanity and looking at us as if we were another species. I think if you adopt that perspective you can make some interesting speculations about the origins of morality. You could observe that human beings experience lust and explain this as a drive towards reproduction. But you can also see how beings that only experience lust in this context might not survive as well as others who experience love and affection for each other. Once you are capable of loving another being you are on the road to empathy and a great deal of morality is built on that. As an outsider you could observe that a being feels hunger when it needs to eat, thirst when it needs to drink, lust when it needs to reproduce and empathy when it needs to live with other beings. There is an instinct to do whatever should increase the happiness of members of our group. Sometimes we have to work out what course of action would maximise happiness and sometimes we get it wrong. I think the subjugation of women in many societies is the result of men trying to maximise the happiness of themselves and other men – overlooking the need for women to be happy too. I think you can see evidence of people following the instinct to maximise human happiness everywhere – and there are many cases where they get it wrong, usually by focussing on a subgroup rather than the whole of humanity. There are some communities where it is considered morally wrong to help the police, some people think homosexuality is morally reprehensible and so on. It’s hard to reconcile this variety of moral positions with belief in a single objective morality originating with god. It looks more like people following an instinct to increase the happiness of themselves and others but occasionally getting things wrong.

[NH Baritone]

In “The Naked Ape” Desmond Morris made a good job of stepping outside humanity and looking at us as if we were another species. I think if you adopt that perspective you can make some interesting speculations about the origins of morality. You could observe that human beings experience lust and explain this as a drive towards reproduction. But you can also see how beings that only experience lust in this context might not survive as well as others who experience love and affection for each other. Once you are capable of loving another being you are on the road to empathy and a great deal of morality is built on that. As an outsider you could observe that a being feels hunger when it needs to eat, thirst when it needs to drink, lust when it needs to reproduce and empathy when it needs to live with other beings. There is an instinct to do whatever should increase the happiness of members of our group. Sometimes we have to work out what course of action would maximise happiness and sometimes we get it wrong. I think the subjugation of women in many societies is the result of men trying to maximise the happiness of themselves and other men – overlooking the need for women to be happy too. I think you can see evidence of people following the instinct to maximise human happiness everywhere – and there are many cases where they get it wrong, usually by focussing on a subgroup rather than the whole of humanity. There are some communities where it is considered morally wrong to help the police, some people think homosexuality is morally reprehensible and so on. It’s hard to reconcile this variety of moral positions with belief in a single objective morality originating with god. It looks more like people following an instinct to increase the happiness of themselves and others but occasionally getting things wrong.

I have yet to listen to this episode, but (except for the need of paragraph breaks) this comment is one of the most cogent refutations of Herr English's obsession with objective morality that I have read.

Human values and human ethics make sense only in a human context. We value & respect one another simply because we want others to value & respect us and our loved ones. (And I suspect that because we have mirror neurons, we can empathize with others who suffer [women, the poor, the disabled, etc.], even across cultures.) That is all that is necessary to explain our interest in personal and community morality and our penchant for creating moral rules.

Humans have fought and killed those whom they suspected (rightly or wrongly) of violating the value & respect rule. Often we must use our reasoning powers to improve our judgment with regard to those threats. (Diplomacy is the art of convincing others that we value and respect them, even when we disagree with them.)

Simultaneously, we struggle to balance broadening our mutual respect and valuing of diversity with trying to lessen the suffering in our world. Thus we can condemn certain practices, such as genital mutilation or capital punishment, without broadly condemning the societies that carry them out.

[scomsjw]

I’ve ordered the book from Amazon. Whilst waiting for it I have been listening to William Lane Craig debates – there are loads of these online. Initially I found his debating style quite exhilarating but I got fed up after about 6 debates because he seems to present the same arguments in the same way every time. This is particularly irritating when you have just heard one of his arguments dismantled (by Spong or Hitchens for example – both on Youtube) only to hear it presented again without modification at a debate that took place a few months later. Ah well that’s showbusiness.

In all the debates I have heard Craig brings up the arguments presented in this chapter. He claims that (without a god) there can be no objective basis for morality, and that, if morality is subjective then predatory paedophiles and serial killers are just a bit yucky but nothing to complain about. This is asinine. We don't need an objective morality to condemn predatory paedophiles. It is enough to point out that their behaviour undermines the kind of communities we need to build. It is not surprising that social, self-conscious creatures have evolved both biologically and culturally to be repelled by the serial killer’s behaviour. It is what we would expect to find in a species that has survived.

[tonyenglish7]

Gary,

His life will have meaning that is subjective to him. Even his value of a creator because not everyone will share this value and there is no human way to know for certain which creator-belief is true and which is not. I'm fine with saying that there may be an objective meaning out there somewhere, but why does that have to be the only thing of importance to us? Why wouldn't god WANT us to find or own values and meaning that make our lives worth living? Why would he insist that we find this one and only "objective" meaning in life (which isn't very meaningful at all if you ask me), even though we may not live a life that puts us in a position to experience it at all.

Of course we all have the subjective experience of life and we all have different likes and dislikes, we all enjoy different priorities and love different people, have different hobbies and contribute to society differently. That is all true and good. The question is more a question of ultimate meaning. What is valuable objectively? Are humans actually "endowed" with rights, value etc..? Or are the conferred upon us by society, a constitution or declaration of independence? It is not a question of do we experience value, but objectively, outside of whether the state, society, or intergalactic planets value us, do we actually have value and meaning?

Does the Declaration of Independence speak a truism or the actual truth that all men are "created" equal, "endowed" with human rights? Or did the document create these features? If society decides Atheist are to be killed, do they have an objective right to complain? Can they point to a real law outside of society to appeal too? If all is subjective than the answer is no. Of course this is not a proof for the existence of God but it is an evaluation of a world view. which view is more consistent?

Ultimate objectivity or objectivity based upon a subjective grounding of society? When we treat each other with respect, (not defined by agreement but tolerance in disagreement), than we are doing what is actually right because each human being is an amazing creature, with so much value, more than we can even imagine. Diamonds and gold and beautiful sunsets are nothing compared to the value of a free person who is aware of life, others and themselves. To God, this is a gem of great value which he loves. We may want money or fame or whatever but God desires his free persons to find him and live with Him forever.

If life is only what you subjectively experience and then it is over, objectively it is meaningless. If life has a higher purpose, is not over at death and the decisions we make effect an eternal destiny, than there is objective meaning. It cannot be both, it is one or the other...

[tonyenglish7]

It’s hard to reconcile this variety of moral positions with belief in a single objective morality originating with god. It looks more like people following an instinct to increase the happiness of themselves and others but occasionally getting things wrong.

I think this is just restating the question but adding "it is hard to reconcile the variety of views". The core nature of morality and value are what is at question. The different applications of values is a different issue. In different cultures values are applied in ways another culture would not understand. Helping the police could be considered a violation of privacy, something we all value as a human right. Add in the police are known to be corrupt and it is not all that different than any other culture.

Lying to the SS Nazi officers who are knocking at your door searching for the Jews you have hidden in the basement is not a moral crime because lying is the moral thing to do in that circumstance. The lives of those people supercede the moral issue of lying. And further, some societies need to improve their perspective from a lesser moral perspective to a better one. A society without slavery is objectively better than one with it. People get the morals wrong in either world view, but in a theistic world view, getting it wrong means something, where in the materialist world view, getting it wrong is objectively meaningless.

So, just because there is a variety of moral positions, doesn't mean objective morals are not out there to be discovered. We do that all the time when we think through a moral issue. Are we thinking about which is better, chocolate or vanilla, or are some things not subjective? There are a variety of positions on the physics of the universe. Does that mean they are all correct? Differing positions doesn't mean there is an objective reality.

[tonyenglish7]

As I listened through the podcast, I began to wonder why Tony is so obsessed with this idea of objective value. Why is it so important?

This is a basic tool for everyone who want to impose their values on other people. He wants to say people cannot just value whatever they choose they have to value the things that Tony values and so his god becomes his tool by which to say that it is only what he says his god values that really has any value.

My approach to this is a bit different, to say that we can of course value anything we choose. But just because we can make different choices does not mean that all the choices are equal. The pursuit of some values will prove to be more shallow and less capable of providing any lasting happiness that other things. God certainly knows what values are most worth pursuing and which are temporary.

I never saw god as this limited.

Tell me about it! This is the inevitable result of what legalists do when they taylor god and righteousness to a door at which they can be the gatekeepers. The result is a god that is as small a their own minds.

Mitch,

You say here that "God certainly knows what values are most worth pursuing and which are temporary". So, doesn't that make those values objective?

And regarding the gatekeepers comment, it seems self refuting since you seem to be the one saying that because I disagree with you, I am on the outs from God, did this come from your own mind?

Mitch, please stop the personal attacks, those are boring and accomplish nothing but to make you look desperate for an actual idea. You bash my motives constantly which are irrelevant to what is actually true. This is a discussion forum about ideas and world views. Discuss yours and attack mine if you like, but the constant personal attack on motives is boring... If you do not want to discuss these ideas with me, just say so, but it is bad form simply to just attack me with terms like legalist, rapist god, small mind, etc... Maybe from the comfort of your computer screen you have lost the human empathy we are all touting. If you want to call me directly to talk, I am open...I will send you my phone number via email.

First show that I am wrong and then we can discuss why I am wrong. You skip right to the why, without any argument whatsoever and you make yourself look silly in the process... I find your ideas interesting to consider. Make your argument from logic, scripture, reason etc.. personal attacks are meaningless in this venue.

Let's try and stick to actual ideas, opinions and arguments, OK?

[ScottBarger]

As a Christian, I have never been able to come up with an example of an objective, universal moral good other than "obey God." Outside the Christian world view I can come up with things that are more or less morally good, but objectivity is hard to come by. Can anyone give me an example of one of these objective (universal, transcendent...whatever) morals? Without one, I think the whole construct falls apart, doesn't it?

[gary_s]

Tony:

Of course we all have the subjective experience of life and we all have different likes and dislikes...

OK, fine. We all seem to agree on this, so let's move past it and not continue to confuse the issue with this fact.

The question is more a question of ultimate meaning.

What is this? Can you define it?

Are humans actually "endowed" with rights, value etc..? Or are the conferred upon us by society, a constitution or declaration of independence? It is not a question of do we experience value, but objectively, outside of whether the state, society, or intergalactic planets value us, do we actually have value and meaning?

My answer to this question is "no". Only by collective agreement do these values exist.

Does the Declaration of Independence speak a truism or the actual truth that all men are "created" equal, "endowed" with human rights? Or did the document create these features?

Yes, the document created them. And my proof of this is simple. In some societies, a more collective agreement is preferred, less rights but less responsibility as well, a willingness to defer rights in exchange for stability and conformity. Even in the U.S., our abundance of rights is limited. We do not actually enjoy an infinite range of rights even if you don't count those rights that impede on the rights of others. I don't have the right to smoke marijuana even though if I grew it in my backyard and smoked it at home, it would hurt no other person in the world. Our rights are limited and agreed on by a representative body. There's nothing objective about our rights, Tony.

If society decides Atheist are to be killed, do they have an objective right to complain? Can they point to a real law outside of society to appeal too? If all is subjective than the answer is no.

The answer, of course, is "no". There is no objective moral value that I can see for allowing atheists to live, no more than there is in allowing murderers to live. But, am I casting equal value in atheism and murder? Absolutely not. Atheism has not been declared a crime, at least not in the U.S., and it harms no one. Our collective, constitutionally-driven rights do not render a reasonable condition for putting atheists to death. In fact, because states are allowed to make this particular (and I should say arbitrary) decision, murder doesn't even garner the death penalty universally in the U.S. It's a subjective thing and not everyone agrees. Is it "morally objective" to put a murderer to death? I don't know, but as a society, we generally say that it is OK to do so, but that is as subjective as choosing a favorite color.

Of course this is not a proof for the existence of God but it is an evaluation of a world view. which view is more consistent?

No, this is not an evaluation of a worldview. That is what you keep saying, but it is nothing but a false dichotomy. You keep insisting that it must be THIS or it must be THAT, but you have absolutely no basis on which to base this artificial belief! For all we know, god could have intended all of these morally gray issues to be challenging just to make things interesting for us.

Ultimate objectivity or objectivity based upon a subjective grounding of society?

Clearly, if one looks at societies that existed before the enlightenment era, most people would have said the former, for nearly every ruler based his position on the grace of some god or another. But it has become far more clear now that it is the latter, that we humans have the power and intelligence to forge societies that reflect our collective values and not the values of a single man, a small group of men, or a single institution claiming to know what that ultimate objectivity is. If we truly believed in ultimate objectivity, then we would be far better off giving power of government back to religious leaders, for they are the ones who continue to claim that they know the mind of god.

When we treat each other with respect, (not defined by agreement but tolerance in disagreement), than we are doing what is actually right because each human being is an amazing creature, with so much value, more than we can even imagine.

Just another false premise, Tony. Sure, you and I find humans valuable and amazing, but what about the horned frog? Some people might find the horned frog the most amazing creature in the world. I doubt you could get a fraction of the population to vote for the horned frog as the most amazing creature in the world. That's subjective and it's really not much different from everything else we humans do.

Diamonds and gold and beautiful sunsets are nothing compared to the value of a free person who is aware of life, others and themselves.

I actually place very little value on gold and diamonds. I have no interest in jewelery. If you gave me a 10K diamond, I would immediately sell it to convert it to money.

To God, this is a gem of great value which he loves. We may want money or fame or whatever but God desires his free persons to find him and live with Him forever

.

But that's just such a hokey thing to say, "god wants us to live with him forever". What has that to do with anything on earth? To connect that to anything in daily life you would have to create a set of preferences and rules and judgments which is exactly what religion is. This is just circular logic. You are just saying that religious morals are valuable because god wants us to be with him and to be with him, one has to abide by these religious morals. And anyway, you still have no basis for saying that one cannot find god and live with him forever even if his religious concepts are nothing like yours.

If life is only what you subjectively experience and then it is over, objectively it is meaningless.

NO, it is not! LIFE has meaning in the living, Tony. By pinning your value on an eternal afterlife, you are the one marginalize the value of life on earth. Think of it this way, an analogy to football. Many college football fans believe that if the NCAA were to adopt a deep playoff system for a championship, it would marginalize the value of the regular season. Who cares if you beat team A or team B if you didn't make the playoffs? That's their reasoning. To me this is nonsense because it is valuable to me if my team beats our cross-state rivals. I happen to enjoy seeing my team beat them and have bragging rights for 12 months. Only by putting all the emphasis and importance in winning a national championship (or in your case, living this eternal life with god), can you destroy the value of the regular season (earthly life).

If life has a higher purpose, is not over at death and the decisions we make effect an eternal destiny, than there is objective meaning. It cannot be both, it is one or the other...

Define "higher purpose".

Again, how do you know this dichotomy exists, Tony? Where did you get this information? To put it bluntly, I think you are just dead wrong about this and you have provided no real argument to support it. This is basically just your opinion. If god put us here for one reason only, to make the decision to believe he exists so that we could join him in eternal life, or else our whole existence is worthless, then that is the cruelest of gods that I can imagine. There is no love or compassion in such a god. God could much more easily have created robots that he could rely upon to do the right thing.

[tonyenglish7]

Scott,

I have heard you say this before and I am so happy for the chance to talk about this. Your question misses the issue. I think you are missing the actual point of the argument. You are talking "Epistemologically" with this question. This is the knowledge of morals or the knowing of morals. Which I think is completely understandable. We all sense that morals exist but we need to think and discuss and debate what is the most moral answer given any particular circumstance. But this is not what I am talking about.

I am talking "Ontologically" or the actual being of morals. The question as to whether or not morals are real, or just subjective. For something to be real, it has to have actual being or reality apart from whether or not anyone knows it is real or actual. As I said, prior to the knowledge of the world being round, it was round. This is an objective fact even if everyone thinks it is flat. Through more information it is later discovered that the idea of the world being flat was objectively wrong.

So, we are not discussing how we know morals, but what is the actual nature of morals. So, we look at the ramifications of each view. In one view, morals are just the construct of society. They exist as an agreement between people to get the most happiness possible and maybe even evolved as a sort of instinct like that of a bird dog or ant farm. We do it and feel it because our brains have evolved to feel guilty for selfishness when it hurts others.

Or, morals are something we discover and learn about as we use our minds to see reality. Any functioning mind will realize first hand that torturing atheists for fun and pleasure is wrong. In this view the mind that is operating correctly detects this truth as part of the actual reality of life. They sense this in a direct way, without the need for argument or discussion. It is not an illusionary trick of evolution or a social conditioning function of combined nurturing experiences. It is just as real as the sunsets or landscapes we see. But this is also only real if there is a transcendent personal mind that grounds the facts i.e. persons have value, goodness is valuable, life is designed with a purpose, etc.. If these things are not extant, than everything regarding morals is an illusion.

So to ask for me to point to a single "objective moral law", misses the point. It is always subjective between persons when we discuss what is moral, what is good, what is valuable and what is reasonable. But the very fact that we can discuss these issues shows that morals are grounded in the fact that they actually exist. Otherwise we are discussing simple preferences.

So, it seems to me to that it is much more logically consistent to consider that human rights are real and not just taste preferences. It makes it more consistent that we can push societies to give women human rights and condemn men for withholding these rights, instead of telling them they are wrong about their preferences. It is less arbitrary in the theistic world view to stop apartheid, slavery, abortion, human trafficking, and child abuse, when you know there is an actual objective reason instead of a personal aversion that has been bred or knocked into us.

So, when we make a moral decision, are we making it in reference to anything or anyone real? Or is it just relative to our circumstances, preferences, culture and personal tastes? Without God, the latter is the case, with God the former. Purpose, value and meaning either are an illusion, or God exists.

[yjoeyh]

As a Christian, I have never been able to come up with an example of an objective, universal moral good other than "obey God." Outside the Christian world view I can come up with things that are more or less morally good, but objectivity is hard to come by. Can anyone give me an example of one of these objective (universal, transcendent...whatever) morals? Without one, I think the whole construct falls apart, doesn't it?

Right. I think problem with this form of the argument is that it focuses on objective "morals" rather than objective "morality." It could be that this version is meant to be more pragmatic than philosophical. In any event, I think the argument works better with the idea that God himself is the “universal moral good.” In other words, God is not really the source for objective moral values, but rather is the center of gravity for objective morality. Things are more moral when they are more like God, and less moral when they are less like God. Is that kind of what you are saying?