In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

_{Salvador Cordova

July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
…
this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments

If I can “make a difference” in the world – that is meaningful, is it not? If not, what am I missing?
One may feel something is meaningful, but how does that feeling accord with reality? If the universe is meaningless, how does it logically follow our feelings of meaning are logically correct versus being an illusion (like supposedly "free will" is an illusion). Fiction seems meaningful, moving, inspiring -- but is it really meaningful? What logical basis is there for saying something can be meaningful in a universe that is pointless. Paraphrasing Weinberg: the more we know the more pointless the universe seems.scordova_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

The etymology of "meaning" is closely related to that of "intention." What one "means" is what one intends a listener to take from one's utterance. Therefore "meaning" starts as a verb (to mean), and denotes a characteristically human acion. It is a component of the notion of human agency. It is only later that "that which one intends to convey" is reified into the noun "meaning." "The world" is not an agent and doesn't have intentions - therefore it doesn't "mean" anything (doesn't intend to convey messages). Nor it is "the world" itself a message. I don't see why that would bother anyone, or have the slightest bearing upon whether human actions may be construed as reflecting intentions or "acts of meaning" (Jerome Bruner's wonderful phrase).Reciprocating Bill_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

A few comments: (1) I'm not a materialist, and if one insists that atheism is, or entails, materialism, then I'll happily say that I'm not an atheist, either. I've said that many, many times, but for some reason I'm not taken seriously when I say that. I oppose 'materialism' on empirical, metaphysical, and political grounds. I'm not concerned to attack or defend atheism one way or the other. I'm much happier calling myself an "apatheist" than an "atheist." (2) I've repeatedly affirmed my commitment to objective truth -- indeed, to objective morality as well as objective 'matter of fact' knowledge. All I've denied is that objectivity the same thing as, or is logically connected with, absolutism. And I've given the argument for that view many, many times as well. I'm not going to bother doing so again. (3) It is no part of my view that knowledge is the same as, or is logically connected with, certainty. I think that Dewey was exactly right when he argued that "the quest for certainty" is something better given up than continued. (4) I think that Churchland is basically right is proposing that we explain the reliability of our cognitive capacities (our capacities for reliable perception, conceptualization, and action) in terms of sustaining a homomorphic relation between neurophysiological relations and somatic and environmental relations. (Notice, then, that it's a second-order relation rather than a first-order relation.) And I think that Churchland's response to Plantinga is exactly right. (For more on this, see: Churchland, P. (2009), “Is Evolutionary Naturalism Epistemologically Self-Defeating?”, Philo: A Journal of Philosophy 12:2.) (5) I think that Churchland's views about the reliability of neurophysiological processes as mostly accurate maps of the practical environment works better in terms of a metaphysics of emergence than in terms of the metaphysics of materialism in which he embeds those views. (6) One major part of Churchland's account which frustrates me is that he doesn't do much to connect "the sub-personal story" -- causal explanations about neuro-cognitive processes -- with "the personal story" -- conceptual explications of norm-governed inferential relations between judgments. In fact, the paper I'm working on now is an attempt to do just that -- connect Churchland with Brandom. It's pretty clear to me that reconciling the two "sons of Sellars" -- Brandom and Churchland -- will require distinguishing between the dimension of explication and the dimension of explanation.Kantian Naturalist_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Central Scrutinizer,
So then, you agree with me.
No, because you wrote:
The humorous thing is, on the one hand they’ll tell you there is no ultimate meaning, and then straight-away tell you why you should believe this social model or that social model “for the betterment of society”...
I don't see anything humorous or odd about that. It makes perfect sense.keiths_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Keiths: I simply think that I am better off in a democracy, that you are also, and that so are our compatriots. I am appealing to our shared interest and our shared concern for the well-being of our fellow citizens. That appeal wouldn’t sway a psychopath, of course, but then again neither would “ultimate morality”.
So then, you agree with me.CentralScrutinizer_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

DonaldM,
Now, since all of your cognitive faculties are the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity (the onlyoption you have as an atheist), then on what basis do you think they have as one of their primary functions to deliver sensory inputs that you can then know, in some objective sense, are true?
I can't trust my senses absolutely, and neither can you. We know that optical illusions exist, for example.
In order for you to argue for that, you’d have to assume your cognitive faculties are capable of delivering you true perceptions about what Truth is, which becomes a very circular argument and question begging of the first order.
We cannot know, in an absolute sense, that our cognitive faculties are trustworthy. We just have to do our best with what we have. This applies to you as much as it does to me. Materialists and non-materialists alike face this problem.
You assume you’re being rationale with your arguments…but on what basis do you know with certainty that that is actually true?
I don't know it with certainty. I do my best, which is all I can do. You are in the same boat. Invoking an immaterial mind doesn't help at all. How do you know your immaterial mind is reliable?keiths_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

I really don't understand this idea that if there is no God life has no meaning unless we invent it. I didn't understand it when I was a theist, and I don't understand it now. Of course there is meaning without assuming or believing in God. We make propositions, and we can test the truth of those propositions. We can also make art, and move people. None of this requires we believe in God. I have spent most of my life as a musician, and now work as a scientist. Making music doesn't seem "meaningless" to me - it is deeply satisfying, both to makers and listening, and also deeply moving. Nor does science seem "meaningless" to me - to hypothesise an explanation, and then test its predictions and find them confirmed is enormously meaningful - it means that I have probably found out something true about the world. So what does "meaningless" mean in the context of the OP? If I can "make a difference" in the world - that is meaningful, is it not? If not, what am I missing?Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

KN in #6
And it ought to be pointed out that that view, which is as obvious to me as your view is to you, is as unintelligible to you as your view is to me. I don’t know if there’s a way out of this stalemate, and quite frankly, I doubt it. But it’s important to at least diagnosis the stalemate correctly. The stalemate is not about who is or isn’t “rational” or whatever; it’s about one’s ability and desire to say “yes!” to contingency and impermanence. It’s neither rational nor irrational to want something more than contingency and impermanence; it is neither rational nor irrational to love goodness, truth, and beauty even in the face of their contingency and fragility.
Your comment here assumesbut does not demonstrate that you have any way at all to determine what goodness, truth and even beauty actual mean, let alone how to recognize them when you see them. Adn therein lies the problem. There is no stalemate here. Either there really is objective truth or there isn't. Your argument demonstrates that there is. Your comment "The stalemate is not about who is or isn’t “rational” or whatever; it’s about one’s ability and desire to say “yes!” to contingency and impermanence" is a statement of objective truth. It could be phrased thusly: It is objectively true that "The stalemate is not about who is or isn’t “rational” or whatever; it’s about one’s ability and desire to say “yes!” to contingency and impermanence." If it isn't objectively true, then the statement has no meaning. If is objectively true, then it contradicts itself, because the very statement isn't contingent or impermanent. If you're going to argue by logic and reason, you can't just lay logic and reason aside with a sweep of the hand and pretend you've said something profound.DonaldM_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Central Scrutinizer,
The humorous thing is, on the one hand they’ll tell you there is no ultimate meaning, and then straight-away tell you why you should believe this social model or that social model “for the betterment of society” as if society is something that should be improved or maintained contra my personal whims. Of course, the whole “morality argument” doesn’t prove there is a God, but if reality has no ultimate meaning and I’m free to concoct my own, don’t be surprised (or give me a bunch of subjective sentimental hogwash) why I shouldn’t slit your throat for whatever you may have in your wallet. Or kill you and eat your liver with fava beans.
If I recommend democracy to you over totalitarianism, it's not because I believe democracy is better in some Ultimate sense. I simply think that I am better off in a democracy, that you are also, and that so are our compatriots. I am appealing to our shared interest and our shared concern for the well-being of our fellow citizens. That appeal wouldn't sway a psychopath, of course, but then again neither would "ultimate morality".keiths_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

KeithS in #4 - Your extended response hasn't helped your case any. If anything, its made your case worse. You speak of finding Truth is some objective sense:
Of course “payoffs” are primary. It’s just that you don’t seem to think that the truth leads to better payoffs. I do. If we were actually better off not pursuing the truth, and if we somehow knew that with near certainty, then I would advocate not pursuing the truth. Of course, to find out that we were better off not pursuing the truth, we would have to pursue the truth of that statement itself. And we would want to keep questioning it in case we made a mistake. That would mean considering the truth of related ideas, and before we knew it, we’d be back in full pursuit of the truth again.
Now, since all of your cognitive faculties are the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity (the onlyoption you have as an atheist), then on what basis do you think they have as one of their primary functions to deliver sensory inputs that you can then know, in some objective sense, are true? In order for you to argue for that, you'd have to assume your cognitive faculties are capable of delivering you true perceptions about what Truth is, which becomes a very circular argument and question begging of the first order. You assume you're being rationale with your arguments...but on what basis do you know with certainty that that is actually true? On your worldview, you have no rational or logical way to answer the question in any non-question begging way. Your thoughts, perceptions, actions, all of it are the result of material interactions, which themselves are the result of the blind, purposeless forces mentioned above. How do you live with that sort of cognitive dissonance? Even worse, I'm not sure you recognize that it is cognitive dissonance!DonaldM_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

There's an unexamined assumption here that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why it would even so much as seem reasonable to make. The assumption is this: that if there is no ultimate or absolute __________ (meaning, value, purpose, significance), then there is no real __________ at all. The assumption here is that the reality or being of value/significance/purpose, etc depends upon their being absolute, ultimate, etc. I don't understand this. For me, when Dewey says "But values are as unstable as the forms of clouds. The things that possess them are exposed to all the contingencies of existence, and they are indifferent to our likings and tastes," he is expressing a profound truth. As I see it, accepting the contingency and fleetingness of moral and aesthetic values, or of epistemic and ethical norms, and of existential significance is fully consistent with finding things to be, really and truly, good or bad, true or false, beautiful or ugly, and so forth. And it ought to be pointed out that that view, which is as obvious to me as your view is to you, is as unintelligible to you as your view is to me. I don't know if there's a way out of this stalemate, and quite frankly, I doubt it. But it's important to at least diagnosis the stalemate correctly. The stalemate is not about who is or isn't "rational" or whatever; it's about one's ability and desire to say "yes!" to contingency and impermanence. It's neither rational nor irrational to want something more than contingency and impermanence; it is neither rational nor irrational to love goodness, truth, and beauty even in the face of their contingency and fragility. To use Nietzsche's terms, this is a contrast between the tragic sense of life and Socratic optimism. That's not a contrast that can be decided by appealing to argument and evidence.Kantian Naturalist_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Sal,
But it seems to me when KeithS says “we create our own menaing” even though he knows there is no meaning, that’s not consistent with caring about the truth, but more about caring about a delusion that makes KeithS feel better.
Anything that is meaningful to me has meaning, obviously. It's real meaning, just as my thoughts are real thoughts. It just isn't capital-M Meaning. But so what? Small-m meaning is enough, and I don't have to lie to myself to see that.keiths_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Sal, You quoted yourself:
But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case. Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.
But then you left out my response:
Of course “payoffs” are primary. It’s just that you don’t seem to think that the truth leads to better payoffs. I do.
Selective editing seems to be a specialty of yours. Here's my full comment:
Sal,
I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God?
Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God. Why would it?
In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.
I think you may actually be living that way. Your attraction to Pascal’s Wager seems to be based on a belief that the truth isn’t very important to your “payoff”.
Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.
Of course “payoffs” are primary. It’s just that you don’t seem to think that the truth leads to better payoffs. I do. If we were actually better off not pursuing the truth, and if we somehow knew that with near certainty, then I would advocate not pursuing the truth. Of course, to find out that we were better off not pursuing the truth, we would have to pursue the truth of that statement itself. And we would want to keep questioning it in case we made a mistake. That would mean considering the truth of related ideas, and before we knew it, we’d be back in full pursuit of the truth again.
Not to pick on your statement, but “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
Not at all. The fact that X does (or doesn’t) love me is an objective truth. The meaning I attach to her love is subjective (in the emotional sense of the word ‘meaning’, which is the relevant one here).
I think your objections to the Bible are those I could sympathize with, and have shared myself, that’s not to say I think those are grounds to reject the Bible. There are a lot of truths I don’t like, but have to come to terms with. Obviously, with respect to evolution we’ll never find agreement, but at least for once, I could empathize deeply with your viewpoint, particularly the serial genocide in the Old Testament.
I’d be curious to hear how you reconcile that with your faith. Your attraction to YEC seems to be motivated by a hope that the Bible is true and trustworthy and that YEC could help establish that, but if the Bible is true, then all of those nasty stories about God are also true. Wouldn’t that be bad news for you?
(For the curious, the last part of that comment is a reference to my deconversion story.)keiths_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

KeithS wrote: That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.
But it seems to me when KeithS says "we create our own menaing" even though he knows there is no meaning, that's not consistent with caring about the truth, but more about caring about a delusion that makes KeithS feel better. Hence, in a meaningless world, it's hard to say truth always has a better payoff than delusion. "We create our own meaning" is Dawkins Delusion.scordova_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Interestingly enough, we're discussing this topic in my congregation this week. Those who champion evolution declare that life came about without any intelligent direction. There is no Creator. Humans are just animals (according to Dr. Eugene McCarthy, we all came from a pig-chimp hybrid) so it shouldn't surprise anyone if humans behave in an animalistic fashion. The strong overpowering the weak are simply following the laws of nature. It's not surprising that many believe that injustice will always exist. There's another thread that discusses the link (however tenuous) between Nazism and Darwinism. The theory of evolution is, without doubt, responsible for some of the human misery that we have seen over the past century or so. It hasn't provided any good guidelines for living, nor has it provided hope for anything better. Instead, the results are as the apostle Paul stated: people are "in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God." (Ephesians 4:17-19)Barb_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

C.S. Lewis wrote about all this in The Abolition of Man. If atheists really believe their philosophy, then one should think they would be promoting it at public schools and universities. Oh, wait, they do. Some of them anyway. The humorous thing is, on the one hand they'll tell you there is no ultimate meaning, and then straight-away tell you why you should believe this social model or that social model "for the betterment of society" as if society is something that should be improved or maintained contra my personal whims. Of course, the whole "morality argument" doesn't prove there is a God, but if reality has no ultimate meaning and I'm free to concoct my own, don't be surprised (or give me a bunch of subjective sentimental hogwash) why I shouldn't slit your throat for whatever you may have in your wallet. Or kill you and eat your liver with fava beans.CentralScrutinizer_{July 6, 2013
July
07
Jul
6
06
2013
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 24 25 26

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply