#48 ✓ Consider: Wouldn’t I be despondent without the purpose & meaning that the Christian God is said to provide?

Consider the Following:

Summary: This post challenges the notion that life’s meaning and purpose must come from an external authority, such as the Christian God, emphasizing that self-derived meaning, grounded in individual values and experiences, is both legitimate and fulfilling. It critiques the arbitrariness of imposed purpose, highlighting the freedom and authenticity that come from embracing personal agency and rejecting external dictates.

Imagine Bob and Betty, a husband and wife living a contented life on a small farm in the countryside. They have two children, and while life presents its challenges, they find substantial satisfaction in their relationship and their work around the farm.

One day, a traveler visits and informs them that their land and lives actually belong to a powerful king. Bob and Betty ask for evidence, and the traveler presents a book that claims all they are and have belong to this king. It asserts that they will never have true meaning and purpose in their lives until they submit to the king’s will.

However, not inclined to accept claims without evidence, the couple asks why the king does not visit them personally, especially since the book claims he is always present in the area. The traveler rebukes them, stating that they can never please the king without faith.

Should Bob and Betty trust the traveler and his book? If they reject the king as their source of meaning and purpose, would their lives then become meaningless and purposeless? Are Bob and Betty mistaken about the meaning and purpose they experienced on their farm with their cherished children?

The Flaws in “Externally Imposed Meaning”

Many proponents of religious belief argue that true meaning and purpose must come from an external authority, often defined as God. But this assertion has several critical flaws.

Circular Reasoning:
The argument assumes what it sets out to prove. By asserting that meaning must come from a god, believers exclude the possibility of self-derived meaning as legitimate. This is a form of begging the question—presupposing that only externally imposed meaning is valid without providing evidence.
Relativism of External Meaning:
Meaning provided by an external source, whether a deity or human authority, remains subjective. If the Christian God were to declare that someone’s purpose is to endlessly serve Him, how does this differ fundamentally from the subjective decrees of a human ruler? Declaring that God’s authority is “objective” because it is ultimate or cosmic merely shifts the subjectivity to a higher plane without addressing its arbitrariness.
Undermining Individual Agency:
The concept of self-derived meaning is often dismissed as “insufficient,” but why? Each person is intimately familiar with their values, preferences, and aspirations. In contrast, an external entity—be it divine or human—cannot understand or respect the nuances of individual experience in the same way.

The Reality of Self-Derived Meaning

Imagine again the lives of Bob and Betty. Before the traveler arrived, they found joy in raising their children, cultivating their land, and sharing in each other’s successes and failures. These pursuits were inherently meaningful to them because they aligned with their values.

When individuals create meaning, it is derived from the intersection of their values, experiences, and desires. A painter finds meaning in creating art, a teacher in inspiring students, and a farmer in cultivating the earth. This kind of meaning is not diminished by its subjectivity but rather enriched by its personal significance.

Integrating Empirical and Logical Counterpoints

Empirical Evidence of Fulfilling Lives Without Faith:
Vast studies on secular populations demonstrate that atheists and agnostics often report lives filled with satisfaction and purpose. Research conducted in Scandinavia—where religiosity is among the lowest globally—shows that people lead rich, connected, and fulfilling lives. Moreover, organizations like The Clergy Project document the lives of former believers, many of whom were clergy, who now find deeper purpose in secular pursuits. If life without a god were inherently meaningless, such flourishing lives would be impossible.
The Redundancy of God as a “Meaning-Giver”:
If the meaning bestowed by God is ultimately derived from His will, this makes meaning arbitrary. What if God’s will were capricious or malevolent? Would meaning in such a case still be “true”? The notion of God’s goodness often props up this argument, but it leaves the door open to Euthyphro’s dilemma: Is something meaningful because God decrees it, or does God decree it because it is meaningful? In either case, the argument undermines God’s necessity as a source of meaning.
The Moral Risks of External Meaning:
History provides abundant examples of atrocities justified by externally imposed purposes. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and contemporary religious extremism often stem from the belief that meaning and purpose must align with divine commands, no matter how destructive. A self-derived meaning, grounded in empathy and shared human experience, avoids this pitfall.

The Myth of Objective Meaning from a Creator

Advocates of God-derived meaning often assert that, because God is the creator, He has a right to impose purpose on creation. However, this argument does not follow logically.

Creation Does Not Imply Ownership:
A sculptor may create a statue, but the statue owes the sculptor nothing. The relationship between creator and creation cannot bypass the considerations of autonomy and consent. If a god creates beings capable of forming their own purposes, then those beings should have the right to exercise their agency.
Alignment Is Accidental, Not Obligatory:
If a person finds that their values align with those attributed to a deity, this is a matter of coincidence, not divine decree. It is incoherent to claim that beings are obligated to embrace a purpose just because it originates from their creator.

Conclusion: Freedom Beyond the Christian God

To return to Bob and Betty, their lives on the farm were already filled with meaning and purpose before the traveler imposed his narrative. Rejecting the king does not erase the love they feel for their children, the satisfaction of a hard day’s work, or the joy in each other’s presence. These experiences are real and profound, regardless of whether they align with some supposed cosmic decree.

Life’s meaning and purpose do not require submission to any external authority, whether human or divine. They arise from our ability to connect deeply with others, pursue passions, and live in accordance with our values. To live authentically is to embrace this freedom, free from the chains of imposed purpose.

Let us question the traveler and the king alike, for the meaning of life is not something handed down—it is something we create.

The Logical Form

Argument 1: External Meaning Is Arbitrary

Premise 1: Meaning imposed by an external authority (e.g., a deity) is based on the authority’s subjective preferences.
Premise 2: Subjectivity remains subjective regardless of the authority’s position or power.
Conclusion: Therefore, meaning derived from a deity or external source is arbitrary and not inherently objective.

Argument 2: Self-Derived Meaning Is Legitimate

Premise 1: Individuals can derive meaning from the intersection of their values, experiences, and desires.
Premise 2: This self-derived meaning aligns with personal fulfillment and reflects authentic agency.
Conclusion: Therefore, self-derived meaning is legitimate and does not require validation from an external source.

Argument 3: Empirical Evidence Refutes Necessity of God for Meaning

Premise 1: Secular populations (e.g., Scandinavians) and former believers report fulfilling lives without reliance on God.
Premise 2: If life without God were inherently meaningless, such flourishing would be impossible.
Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that life requires God for meaning is refuted by empirical evidence.

Argument 4: Creator’s Ownership Does Not Imply Obligation

Premise 1: Creation does not confer legitimate ownership over the created entity (e.g., a sculptor does not own the statue’s purpose).
Premise 2: Considerations of autonomy and consent apply regardless of the creator’s authority.
Conclusion: Therefore, beings created by a deity incur no obligation to adopt the creator’s imposed purpose.

Argument 5: Freedom in Self-Determined Purpose

Premise 1: A life free from imposed meaning allows individuals to act in alignment with their values.
Premise 2: This freedom represents a superior form of authenticity and agency.
Conclusion: Therefore, rejecting imposed meaning fosters greater freedom and fulfillment.

^{(Scan to view post on mobile devices.)}

A Dialogue

The Source of Meaning and Purpose

CHRIS: Life without the Christian God is meaningless and purposeless. Only by submitting to His will can we find true meaning and purpose.

CLARUS: That assumes true meaning must come from an external authority like God. Why should meaning imposed by God be more valid than meaning we derive from our own values and experiences?

CHRIS: Because God is our creator, and as such, He has the authority to assign us our purpose.

CLARUS: Does creation imply ownership? A sculptor creates a statue, but the statue owes nothing to the sculptor. Meaning and purpose arise from autonomy, not imposition—even from a creator.

CHRIS: But God’s authority is not arbitrary; His will is perfect and objective.

CLARUS: That sounds like Euthyphro’s Dilemma. Is something meaningful because God decrees it, or does God decree it because it is inherently meaningful? If the former, meaning is arbitrary; if the latter, God’s decree is unnecessary.

CHRIS: Without God’s guidance, people are lost. History shows that without a higher authority, societies fall into chaos.

CLARUS: Actually, secular societies, such as those in Scandinavia, thrive without belief in God. Their lives are full of meaning, grounded in empathy, shared values, and personal fulfillment—empirical evidence contradicts your claim.

CHRIS: Those people are deceiving themselves. Only God can give objective meaning.

CLARUS: How is God’s meaning not subjective? It reflects His will, not some universal principle. Declaring something “objective” because it comes from an external source doesn’t make it less subjective—it simply shifts the subjectivity to God.

CHRIS: But without God, meaning is limited by human subjectivity.

CLARUS: Why is that a problem? Human meaning is enriched by its connection to personal experiences and values. Unlike imposed meaning, it fosters authenticity and allows individuals to act in alignment with their desires.

CHRIS: But what about the moral dangers of subjective meaning? People could justify anything.

CLARUS: History shows the opposite. Externally imposed meanings have justified atrocities like the Crusades and the Inquisition. Self-derived meaning, grounded in empathy and shared humanity, avoids these moral risks.

CHRIS: If everyone creates their own meaning, isn’t that chaotic and directionless?

CLARUS: Not at all. Self-derived meaning enables individuals to lead lives of greater freedom and fulfillment. It reflects their authentic selves, rather than forcing them into a mold imposed by someone else—divine or human.

CHRIS: But if we reject God, don’t we reject the ultimate source of meaning?

CLARUS: No. Life’s meaning is something we create through our relationships, passions, and actions. Far from rejecting meaning, embracing personal agency affirms it in the most profound way.

Notes:

Helpful Analogies

Analogy 1: The Gardener and the Seed

Imagine a gardener plants a seed in their garden. The seed grows into a vibrant tree that produces fruit. The gardener may claim that the tree’s sole purpose is to provide shade or fruit, but the tree grows according to its own nature, independent of the gardener’s wishes.

Key Point: Just as the tree’s purpose is not determined solely by the gardener’s intentions, a person’s meaning and purpose are not inherently tied to their creator. Purpose arises from one’s internal nature and circumstances, not external decrees.

Analogy 2: The Artist and the Canvas

An artist paints an abstract work and places it in a gallery. Viewers interpret the piece in various ways, finding meaning that resonates with their experiences and emotions. The artist may have a specific vision, but the interpretations of the viewers are equally valid.

Key Point: Meaning, like art, is subjective and personal. Just as the viewers’ interpretations enrich the artwork, individuals derive meaning from their unique perspectives, regardless of an external authority’s intentions.

Analogy 3: The Teacher and the Students

A teacher gives students a broad project with minimal guidelines, allowing them to choose their own topic and method. Some students thrive, exploring their passions and finding deep satisfaction in their work. Others struggle, feeling unmotivated without explicit instructions.

Key Point: Those who take initiative and find meaning in their own way often experience greater fulfillment. Similarly, self-derived purpose fosters authenticity and autonomy, while imposed meaning can stifle creativity and individuality.

These analogies illustrate how meaning and purpose are best understood as personal and self-derived, challenging the necessity of external authority for a fulfilling life.

Addressing Theological Responses

Theological Responses

1. Response: The Creator’s Authority Is Legitimate

Theologians might argue that a creator inherently has the authority to define the purpose of their creation. Just as a designer determines the intended function of a tool, God as the creator of humanity has the right to assign meaning and purpose to human lives. Without this authority, purpose becomes arbitrary and disconnected from the nature of the created being.

2. Response: Self-Derived Meaning Is Insufficient

The claim that individuals can derive meaning from their values and experiences may be seen as shallow or limited. Theologians could argue that human understanding is finite and fallible, and only God’s infinite wisdom can provide a deeper, universal purpose that transcends individual biases or cultural influences.

3. Response: Objective Meaning Requires a Transcendent Source

Theologians may assert that objective meaning must come from a source beyond human subjectivity. Without God, meaning is reduced to personal preference or cultural norms, making it incapable of being universal or enduring. God, as an unchanging and eternal being, offers a stable foundation for objective meaning.

4. Response: The Moral Dangers of Subjective Meaning

Theologians might contend that self-derived meaning can lead to moral relativism, where individuals justify harmful behaviors as meaningful to them. By grounding meaning and purpose in God, believers have a moral framework that guides them toward actions aligned with divine goodness and prevents societal chaos.

5. Response: Secular Societies Borrow from Religious Values

The flourishing of secular societies, such as in Scandinavia, might be attributed to the lingering influence of Christian ethics and values. Theologians could argue that these societies benefit from moral principles rooted in a theistic worldview, even if individuals no longer explicitly believe in God.

6. Response: Freedom Without God Leads to Existential Despair

While self-derived meaning may seem liberating, theologians might argue that it ultimately leads to existential despair. Without a higher purpose, life’s struggles and suffering can seem futile. Belief in God provides not only purpose but also hope and comfort in the face of life’s challenges.

7. Response: Euthyphro’s Dilemma Does Not Undermine God

Theologians might respond that Euthyphro’s Dilemma misunderstands the nature of God. They could argue that God’s will and the nature of goodness are identical—meaning and purpose flow naturally from His character. Therefore, God is both the source and the embodiment of objective purpose, resolving the dilemma.

Counter-Responses

1. Response to “The Creator’s Authority Is Legitimate”

The analogy between a creator and their creation is flawed because humans are autonomous agents, not inanimate objects like tools. While a designer may define the intended function of a tool, the tool itself lacks desires, preferences, or consciousness. In contrast, humans have complex values and the capacity for independent decision-making. Assigning meaning based solely on the creator’s authority disregards the autonomy of the created being, which undermines the legitimacy of imposing external purposes.

2. Response to “Self-Derived Meaning Is Insufficient”

The argument that humans are too finite and fallible to create their own meaning assumes without evidence that an external authority is better equipped to define purpose. Even if God exists, imposing meaning on humans from a divine perspective does not necessarily align with their subjective experiences or well-being. Furthermore, the claim dismisses the richness of self-derived meaning, which emerges organically from the intersection of individual values, relationships, and passions, making it deeply fulfilling and highly personal.

3. Response to “Objective Meaning Requires a Transcendent Source”

The claim that objective meaning requires a transcendent source assumes that objectivity is inherently more valuable than subjectivity. However, meaning is by nature subjective, tied to the perspectives and desires of sentient beings. Introducing God as a transcendent source merely shifts subjectivity to a higher level, as God’s meaning reflects His own preferences. True meaning is better understood as the fulfillment of individual and communal values rather than a cosmic decree.

4. Response to “The Moral Dangers of Subjective Meaning”

The concern about moral relativism overlooks the fact that self-derived meaning does not exist in isolation. It is informed by empathy, shared human experience, and societal norms. History demonstrates that externally imposed meanings, including those rooted in religion, have justified atrocities such as the Crusades and inquisitions. A secular framework based on rational discourse and compassion provides a more reliable guide to prosocial behavior without the risks associated with uncritical submission to divine authority.

5. Response to “Secular Societies Borrow from Religious Values”

The claim that secular societies borrow from religious values ignores the fact that many prosocial principles, such as empathy, fairness, and cooperation, predate organized religion and are rooted in human social evolution. Secular ethics refine and expand these principles without reliance on supernatural beliefs. The flourishing of secular societies demonstrates that moral frameworks can be built on reason, shared human values, and a commitment to well-being, independent of religious influence.

6. Response to “Freedom Without God Leads to Existential Despair”

While belief in God may provide comfort to some, it is not a prerequisite for meaning or hope. Existential despair arises not from the absence of God, but from a failure to embrace the freedom to create meaning that aligns with one’s values and passions. Many secular individuals find profound purpose in relationships, creative pursuits, and contributing to the well-being of others, demonstrating that meaning is attainable without reliance on a deity.

7. Response to “Euthyphro’s Dilemma Does Not Undermine God”

The argument that God’s will and goodness are identical merely sidesteps Euthyphro’s Dilemma without addressing its core issue. If God’s nature defines goodness, then meaning and purpose remain contingent on an arbitrary definition. Conversely, if goodness exists independently of God’s nature, then God is not the ultimate source of meaning. Either way, the dilemma reveals that meaning can exist independently of divine authority.

Clarifications

The Subjective Nature of Meaning: An Essay and Logical Proof

Introduction

The concept of meaning is often debated, particularly whether it can exist objectively or is fundamentally tied to the actor assigning value to an action. This essay argues that meaning is intrinsically and inextricably connected to the values of the actor performing the action. Actions are meaningful only insofar as the actor perceives them as aligned with their personal values or goals. No external observer can assign inherent meaning to an action independent of the actor’s perspective.

The Actor’s Role in Assigning Meaning

Meaning is a relational property, not an intrinsic one. For an action to have meaning, it must relate to a set of values or goals. These values exist only in the mind of the actor. Consider the following examples:

A painter’s intention: A painter might find meaning in creating art because it aligns with their value of self-expression. For an observer to ascribe meaning to the painting, they must project their own values onto the action.
A philanthropist’s work: A person donating to charity may find meaning in helping others because it resonates with their internal value of compassion. To someone who does not share this value, the same act might appear meaningless.

This dependency on the actor’s values underscores that meaning is a subjective construct.

Logical Argument: Meaning Cannot Exist Without the Actor’s Values

To formalize this concept, the following logical argument will demonstrate that meaning is inseparable from the actor’s values.

Definitions

Let:

$A$ represent an action.
$V_a$ represent the set of values of the actor.
$M(A, V_a)$ represent the meaning of an action $A$ relative to the actor’s values $V_a$ .
$M(A, O)$ represent the meaning of an action $A$ as perceived by an external observer $O$ .

Premises

P1: Meaning requires alignment with a value system. Formally:
$\forall A, V_a: M(A, V_a) \neq \varnothing \iff A \text{ aligns with } V_a$ .
P2: Values are subjective and reside only in the mind of the actor or the observer.
Formally: $V_a$ exists only within the actor’s subjective perspective.
P3: External observers project their own values when assigning meaning to another’s action.
Formally: $M(A, O) = M(A, V_o)$ , where $V_o$ represents the observer’s values.

Logical Proof

Claim: The meaning of an action can only exist relative to the actor’s values.

By P1, for an action $A$ to have meaning, it must align with a value system $V$ .
$\forall A: M(A, V) \neq \varnothing \iff A \text{ aligns with } V$ .
By P2, the actor’s values $V_a$ are the primary value system related to their action $A$ .
Therefore, $M(A, V_a)$ depends exclusively on $V_a$ .
By P3, external observers can only assign meaning based on their own values $V_o$ .
Hence, $M(A, O) = M(A, V_o)$ .
An action $A$ cannot simultaneously align with two distinct and independent value systems unless $V_a = V_o$ .
Therefore, $M(A, V_a) \neq M(A, V_o) \text{ unless } V_a = V_o$ .
Thus, the meaning of an action is intrinsically tied to the actor’s values and cannot exist independently of them.

Implications

This proof highlights a fundamental property of meaning: it is inherently subjective. External observers may interpret actions through their own value systems, but this interpretation is distinct from the actor’s meaning. Attempts to universalize meaning misunderstand its relational nature, as meaning is not an objective property but a subjective assignment.

Conclusion

Meaning is inextricably tied to the values of the actor who assigns it. Logical analysis confirms that the meaning of an action cannot exist independently of the actor’s subjective perspective. While external observers may project their values onto actions, this projection does not constitute the intrinsic meaning of the action itself. Recognizing this distinction is essential for understanding the nature of meaning and its role in human experience.

Other Considerations:

(Continued from Above): 4b.) The following elements in your understanding of the creation/common Christian interpretations (and correct me if I’ve…

In response to the specific points in your last post: 1.) Respectfully, what appeared to a form of “question-begging” was…

Thanks for the response. I apologize if my posts weren’t well-outlined or well-formatted: it would probably have been better…

Ryan, your response attempts to bridge the gap between ancient text and modern rationality, but it relies on several logical…

What I was attempting to show was that much of what “Christianity” [a vague term] teaches lacks critical thinking in…

[Biblical faith, as presented in the New Testament, is primarily concerned with conviction in divine authority, rather than rational belief…

Yes, I see that now. All is fine. I think it held the comment as “pending” since it had several…

Hi Phil: I wrote a series of two posts regarding Biblical scholarship and errors in response to the commentor from…

(Continued from Previous Post) As a final aside, I want to provide you with a list of resources and invite…

Ryan: I read your posts and tried to provide some responses above. I wanted to respectfully address your appeal to…