Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Vanity, Vanity, All Is Vanity!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this UD thread, Mentok brought up something that, it seems to me, is quintessentially behind the ID versus materialism controversy: Is there, ultimately, any purpose or meaning behind anything, especially our lives?

With thanks to William Lane Craig, the author of Ecclesiastes, and Carl Sagan, I offer the following:

In an address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Dr. L.D. Rue advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some “noble lie” into thinking that we and the universe actually have value and purpose. He commented, “The lesson of the past two centuries is that intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case.” However, Rue recognized that a society underpinned by such a philosophy cannot function. If we are to avoid the “madhouse option,” as he put it, we must fool ourselves with a “noble lie” so that we will be driven beyond self-interest. He recognized, “Without such lies, we cannot live.”

But there is a big problem. The noble lie will only work for those who genuinely believe it. Those who are aware of the predicament presented by the meaninglessness of life cannot possibly believe the noble lie because they know from the outset that it’s a lie. We are thus in a terrible fix when it comes to “inventing” meaning and purpose for our lives.

To quote William Lane Craig from his book, Reasonable Faith:

If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed at all? It might be said that his life was important because it influenced others, or affected the course of history, but this only shows a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to certain other events, but what is the ultimate significance of any of those events? If all events are meaningless, what can be the ultimate meaning of influencing any of them?”

Our sun will one day become a red giant and then collapse into a white dwarf. During the red-giant phase its corona will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. The earth’s atmosphere will be stripped away and the seas will boil away. The sands will fuse into glass. Our planet and all life will be incinerated. The earth will be sterilized of all life — forever. The stars will eventually all burn out. The universe will then be cold, dark and dead — forever.

There will be no record of anything that anyone has ever thought, done, created, or said.

Comments
Part One One point I was trying to bring up was the hypocrisy of the crusading atheist. They are always telling us about the violence and repression spawned by religious belief (ignoring the underlying socio-political causes which are usually garbed in religious rhetoric in order to justify those actions) yet downplay repression and violence by those who were inspired by materialistic belief systems (eugenics, communism) even though when we compare the two we find that the atheist agenda was far more repressive and murderous in a shorter time then any other ideology in history. In the 20th century alone we see that close to 100 million people died due to atheistic agendas. If you take all the religious wars and deaths caused by a religious agenda throughout human history combined you will not get even close to 100 million people. But besides that hypocrisy is another, and that is that they fancy themselves (ad nauseam) and their atheist evangelizing as something which will help people. I've heard them say that religious beliefs do injustice to the grandeur and magnificance which "science" is constantly revealing to us about the universe, as if "science" is some kind of deity and the universe is it's creation. Then in the next breath they try to convince us we have nothing but death awaiting us all as our final destination. In fact it is religious belief which gives true awe and reverence of the maginficence and grandeur of the universe. If you see the universe as a place that came from dust and will end up as dust and that your few years of your current life is all you have, then you are more likely to see your life similar to how a prisoner on death row sees his life in relation to the universe. You may not even realize it because you are conditioned to accept your view of your ontological position in the universe as normal. If someone is born and lives his entire life in some kind of prison knowing he will be killed at some point, then he won't understand any type of existence beyond that. Even if he hears about life outside of the prison and how people are living a life free from confinement and fear of death, and who are enjoying the world and all it has to offer, still the prisoner will not understand what the experience of those people outside the prison is like. It will be beyond his conceptual frame of reference.mentok
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
testmentok
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
dacook The "O the vainness" quote from "scripture" was unfamiliar to my personal design detection filter. It does not have the flavour of any book of the Bible. It seems to me inappropriate to refer to this quote as "scripture" when it is from the book of Mormon.idnet.com.au
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
I think if we're being honest with people like Dawkins, they probably think the truth is more important than happiness, as well as more productive. This is why they try so much to fight organised religion - they genuinely believe religion is false and that it can divert people from the truth and reason. Of course, the problem is that we do not know if there is a God, afterlife or eternal soul. There is evidence pointing both ways. I don't think Dawkins' intentions are bad, and his efforts are both helpful and harmful to Society in different ways. However, certainly a lot of damage can be caused by being persuaded there is no afterlife. Without hope, life for many of us is a real struggle and if I was certain of no afterlife, I would have very little inclination to continue with this one. On the really big and important issues, unfortunately, the jury's still out, but we shouldn't stop searching and ID is helpful in this regard as well as research into certain types of phenomenen - NDEs, reincarnation, paranormal etc. Better to keep an open mind and hopefully there will be sufficient proof one day for us to know the answers to the big questions.rabbite_uk
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
cdf: "If we knew that there was no ultimate purpose to life or no hope of an eternal life, we wouldn’t immediately fall into a society of mass murderers and rapists." No, it takes time. But it comes, slowly but surely. As now with rape being passed off as an "evolutionary adaptation for spreading ones genes into the pool", rape will get easier and easier on the rapists. They won't be viewed as "bad men" but poor malfuntioning units, as has already been stated by Dawkins, Provine and cie. Gotta wake up and smell the stench there.Borne
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
"What if there really is no ultimate purpose in the universe? Does that mean we can’t live happy, fulfilled lives? Why? " I hope most of us can see how absurd that statement is on its face. If your life has no purpose or point whatsoever (aka- you're no more important than a pair of old shoes)- who sais you can't be happy knowing that? No one who truly believes their life is this worthless is really truly happy.JasonTheGreek
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
We know that materialists don't think life has no meaning by the simple fact that they spend millions of tax payers' money trying to convince others that life has ultimately no meaning. What's the point in trying to teach people that ID is "not science but creationism in a cheap tux"? So what? Who cares anyway? Why does Darwinian fundamentalist Richard Dawkins spends time and money telling others that belief in God is a "delusion"? Again, so what?Mats
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
tribune7, If we could agree on anything, it might be on the notion that believers have as much cause as atheists to be alarmed by the behavior of the extreme elements in each other's camps. But in view of your question about hating atheists, I can think well enough to resist holding my breath.tom
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Dave: Rainbow Bridge I can buy it.tribune7
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Here's what you said: A true atheist gets upset over someone believing in God mainly because of the frequency with which such people want to kill the infidels. Here's what I asked: And what person, who objectively embodies Christian values, has called for the death of Richard Dawkins or PZ Meyers or any prominent atheist? Here's what you answered: Sometimes is it just the “conversion or marginalization” that is called for publicly. So can we agree that you were just writing without thinking when you implied the lives of atheists were endangered by widespread Christianity? Quick quiz: Why is hating atheists bad?tribune7
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
cdf Do animals such as pets have eternal life? I sure hope so. We treat them well and try to make them “happy”… why? Because they love us unconditionally. Your dog doesn't care if you are fat or thin, young or old, rich or poor. He or she will stick by your side, defend you with all of their power, no matter what, until death do you part. It's hard finding that kind of unconditional love with human companions.DaveScot
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
And the religious fear atheists because atheists will indiscriminantly slaughter anyone including other atheists. When moral imperatives are derived from survival of the fittest then it's every man for himself. It's a jungle out there baby and by tooth and by claw must you survive.DaveScot
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
"And what person, who objectively embodies Christian values, has called for the death of Richard Dawkins or PZ Meyers or any prominent atheist?" Sometimes is it just the "conversion or marginalization" that is called for publicly. As one of Christian upbringing, I accept that Christians are at least on average more polite about their hatreds than those of many other faiths. I don't believe you would question whether Muslims have called for death to atheists. And the history of Christianity is hardly free of killing in the name of God. We don't even need to leave the British Isles to illustrate that. Believers (or atheists for that matter) readily redefine the hated target as not merely subhuman but demonic, so that the taking of life is not only excusable but obligatory. Human intelligence can be put to so many uses! And out the window goes the "value of human life." Why only human life, one wonders? Now we know... Full disclosure: I count myself a Christian agnostic, more skeptical of ID than evolution. But who said it had to be "Darwinian"? That is only the prevailing paradigm, destined for the scrapheap of science history like all others.tom
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Ekstasis: "You see, our Materialist intellectuals “know” that all this superstitious religious nonsense is false, but is necessary for the weak, the ignorant, and the uneducated. But they, the elite and enlightened, know better, so they talk about the “fundies” with condescension. This is why God is pleased to reveal himself to the child, the simple, the humble, anyone who genuinely seeks him. But to the “wise” of the world he remains shrouded and elusive." Reminds me of the scripture: " O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. "dacook
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
A true atheist gets upset over someone believing in God mainly because of the frequency with which such people want to kill the infidels. And what person, who objectively embodies Christian values, has called for the death of Richard Dawkins or PZ Meyers or any prominent atheist?tribune7
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
"When the limiting factor of a real morality based on a real value of human life is gone..." Why must some eternal life be what gives human life value? Do animals such as pets have eternal life? If not, then what gives them their value? We treat them well and try to make them "happy"... why? You can appreciate the beauty of the universe and find joy in life outside of God. If we knew that there was no ultimate purpose to life or no hope of an eternal life, we wouldn't immediately fall into a society of mass murderers and rapists. "Why would a true atheist get upset over someone believing in God to the point where he wants to convert or marginalize the believer?" I don't think it's accurate to say that they get upset over someone believing in God... it's that they get upset with the influence religion has on society, particularly politics. "History gives us plenty of clues." This is the old "horrible atheist communist" argument, right? That argument is weak. We could go back in forth all day arguing about the crusades and nazis and communists... an ideology is not defined by individuals who subscribe to that ideology.cdf
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
cdf: "Does that mean we can’t live happy, fulfilled lives? Why?" Go ahead and try to live a happy and fulfilled life in a world of others trying to do the same. When the limiting factor of a real morality based on a real value of human life is gone, what will society become? Will those in power be interested in your happiness? Will they seek to preserve the liberties you enjoy now? Sure, you're probably doing OK living in a place that is still permeated with a certain level of Christian morality and laws founded on it. What will the world be like when the Dawkins of the world have their way and all vestiges of the basis of this morality is wiped clean? History gives us plenty of clues. And it isn't pretty.mike1962
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Re: the main thread: Isn't it really a "big lie" to invoke the will of God, as if we knew it, to give life meaning? Aren't we really just afraid of receiving a lump of coal in our Christmas stockings? And doesn't our DNA create a continuous thread through our lives for billions of years? As the most intelligent life forms, at least in our part of the universe, are we not clearly charged with being sufficiently intelligent to outlive our home star and planet? Won''t that effort require us to transcend narrow self-interest? Re: tribune7's question: A true atheist gets upset over someone believing in God mainly because of the frequency with which such people want to kill the infidels. This seems eminently understandable on the part of the infidels, to me, and more than sufficient justification for wanting to "convert or marginalize" such believers. Similar arguments would clearly apply to atheists intent upon killing believers. Atheists and believers share the ideal that life is sacred, albeit for different reasons, perhaps, and with varying degrees of conviction.tom
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
CDF--Just because you don’t like something, it doesn’t mean it’s false. That kind of works both ways, doesn't it? Anyway, you seem to be missing Mentok's point. Why would a true atheist get upset over someone believing in God to the point where he wants to convert or marginalize the believer?tribune7
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
"Just because you don’t like something, it doesn’t mean it’s false." Yet mentok's agrument seems to suggest even if it's true what's the point? It funny that people like Dawkins finds meaning in life by going away telling others there isn't any meaning in life. If you really believe this is all there is then why should you care what anyone believes. For the wise dies as a fool.Smidlee
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Oh yes, the evolutionary psychologist can give you plenty of reasons for this noble lie. Sure, it helps the tribe bond, and provides a code of conduct. Not that this goal cannot be achieved in plenty of other ways. Maybe psychology does have something to do with it after all. The definition of esoteric is "knowledge that is specialised or advanced in nature, available only to a narrow circle of "enlightened", "initiated", or highly educated people." You see, our Materialist intellectuals "know" that all this superstitious religious nonsense is false, but is necessary for the weak, the ignorant, and the uneducated. But they, the elite and enlightened, know better, so they talk about the "fundies" with condescension. This is why God is pleased to reveal himself to the child, the simple, the humble, anyone who genuinely seeks him. But to the "wise" of the world he remains shrouded and elusive. It only requires recognizing our true nature, and realizing we need help.Ekstasis
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
idnet.com.au: "Isn’t a noble lie a contradiction in terms? " Yes. It's an oxymoron. About Dr Rue - I think it is interesting that he felt compelled to write a book to advocate something he considers a 'noble lie' - in order to ensure a societty was functioning properly. But how does he measure whether a society is functioning properly? and why does he care? Talks like a duck, but walks like a chicken.JGuy
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
So what's the evolutionary explanation for the noble lie I wonder. It seems to me that a society that lives according to this lie which promotes altruism and charity, is in some sense irreducibly complex, because of the interdependence created between people. One person living according to the lie on their own in a world of self-interest stands no chance of getting anywhere.Rowan
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
Isn't a noble lie a contradiction in terms?idnet.com.au
November 23, 2006
November
11
Nov
23
23
2006
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it's false. mentok's argument was horrible. "When a child’s mother dies and the father tells them that 'don’t worry because she is heaven' the Weinbergs and Dawkins of the world want to crush that belief and faith in eternal life for us all into dust, all in the name of 'science'." And your point is? Why must our happiness and feeling of fulfillment rely on faith in eternal life? What if there really is no ultimate purpose in the universe? Does that mean we can't live happy, fulfilled lives? Why?cdf
November 22, 2006
November
11
Nov
22
22
2006
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply