An Atheist Meaning of Life

This is a first and incomplete effort at getting down some ideas towards an atheist meaning of life. There’s a lot more to be said and even more thinking to be done, but it’s a start that can be built upon and adapted. It’s a start.

Heaven. Hell. Fairly well known concepts; there’s blissful peace and there’s fiery damnation. Lots of imagery built up over millennia that shape the way we think about them. But what if heaven and hell are applied to the one life we have on earth. Heaven is the reward for a life with God. Now perhaps that reward doesn't come afterwards as an eternal paradise, maybe the belief in a higher power itself, the purpose and meaning to life which that can bring. Maybe that is the reward of God in and of itself, that reassuring belief where your life isn't a meaningless flash in existence, gone in a moment and barely bright enough to see.

And likewise hell would be the opposite. A life without God being a life without a purpose, a life without real consequences as ultimately eternal death is what follows. The cessation of your existence, your identity and memories, and in time the obliteration of any trace of your existence, I could see that being described as hell. Believing your existence to be meaningless can in fact be the ultimate meaning of hell?

Neither heaven or hell are things waiting for us after we die, they are simply labels to apply to life where one has meaning and the other does not. Religion can then be created as a means of pulling people towards the faith in a higher power camp, and in doing so ensure them a place in the ‘heaven’ of living a life which you can believe has a purpose and an eternal value.

As an atheist that first option I can’t really buy into, and being left with a hell of meaningless existence doesn't appeal either. The third option of just never thinking about it isn't going to work for me either, and perhaps option 2, believing your mind to be meaningless but still putting value in it is just a higher version of option 3. Where saying there’s no meaning and then carrying on because life still has value is still avoiding actually thinking though the implications of a meaningless existence.

So if we don’t want to believe in God and thus secure a place in ‘heaven’, nor have a hellish meaningless existence, is their perhaps a fourth option? How about this? Our lives don’t have a meaning... yet. Perhaps the ultimate meaning of life does exist, there is some higher purpose but we’re not yet capable of understanding it. And we probably won’t get there in our lifetimes. But if in the future an ultimate meaning of existence is found then that would also give all past lives ultimate meaning and thus give us a meaning of life today. The search for that future ultimate meaning can become the lesser meaning for our lives today, the justification for it, and the validation that avoids the hellish conclusion of a meaningless life and an eternity of nothingness after we die.

Now suddenly our lives do have a meaning, we've avoided hell but not had to buy into the idea of a God or other higher power. Our meaning is to strive and develop and search for a future meaning that can then validate our current existences. And how do we do that? If we’re not currently capable of understanding or discovering the meaning of life what do we have to do? We have to advance. We have to progress. We have to develop scientifically, culturally, socially, and any other way we can think of. If we don’t know what the meaning is then we can’t pin one line of advancement down as the one to follow, we must develop across all areas. And we must propagate the species too; the extinction of the human race would prevent us from ever finding our ultimate meaning.

This would be an atheistic meaning of life, one which promotes scientific advancement, cultural development, social improvement, and working to ensure the continuation of the human race. I think that's a pretty good meaning to live by. For now anyway.

Living by the Bible

This is written with the focus largely on the Christian religion as that is what I am most familiar with but you can probably replace Bible with any other holy text, make other necessary substitutions, and the point is still valid.

I feel it is safe to assume one of two things; either the Bible is the literal word of God, word for word, or it has cultural influences in it. One or the other must be the case, if there is another alternative then I am yet to see it. And for this I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and saying it’s not all just fictitious. All I am trying to show with this is the invalidity of using the Bible as a guide for living and perhaps more importantly due to its ability to affect the lives of others, legislation.

So, belief number one, the Bible is the exact word of God. If so then to go against anything in the Bible would be to go against the word of God and that would be a terrible thing for a Christian to do. First looking from an emotive angle, according to the Bible, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16) There it is, in the Bible for all to see, man shall rule over woman, husband over wife, plain and simple. To want it any other way would be to want to go against God. If you wish to please God and believe the Bible to be the exact word of God then you must accept that women are to be ruled over by men. Personally I’d say to hell with that (though possibly that’s not the best choice of words). A Christian who believes the Bible to be the exact word of God cannot support anything remotely resembling gender equality without a logical inconsistency.

Now from a more logical angle, passages in the Bible as to the creation of the universe directly contradict scientific observation, that is, direct observation of the universe God created. So for that to add up it would be necessary to accept that in the Bible God was either wrong, he has created the universe in such a way as to be logically inconsistent, or was actively lying. If any of those three options are true then living by the word of the Bible, treating it as the exact word of God, is pretty preposterous. And what’s the most common (and only valid) response to that problem? “Oh, that bit isn't the word of God. That was just a way of explaining it to the people of the time.”

I’ll say that again: That bit. Isn't. The word of God.

So there we have it, parts of the Bible aren't the word of God, an acceptance of cultural influences in the Bible.

So now we have cultural influences in the Bible, the leads to the big problem; how do you know which bits are the will and views of God and which are cultural influences in the Bible? Is a passage condemning anal sex a cultural bias of the time put in there by the writer, or what God himself would have you believe? There is no way to tell, the same with any other guideline for life drawn from the Bible. Kosher for example, does God abhor eating camels or was it something meant for the culture of the time? This all reduces the Bible to nothing more than a list of possible guidelines for someone to pick and mix their own moral viewpoint from, and once you’re doing that you may as well not have the Bible at all.

Suddenly any justification of an argument with it being “in the Bible” or “the will of God” is completely invalid. It is impossible to build a life accurately following the “word of God” if you acknowledge that whatever Laws you follow may just be cultural opinions from several thousand year ago and for all we know could go directly against the will of God. I'm going to say that again because I think it’s important: If you accept cultural influences in the Bible you cannot know if any line you follow is the will of God or actually goes against the will of God. And if you can’t know that, then to base any moral argument on it is just silly. Now when you take into account that this is not just used to validate people’s own moral choices but laws and actions affecting other people’s lives and human rights (looking at you laws against gay marriage as one example, objecting to the use of condoms as another), then it goes from silly to abhorrent. To live your life under the word of a book that you freely admit to not have any validation in its guidelines is not a valid course of action, but it’s ultimately your life. To use an invalid text to influence other peoples’ lives is just plain wrong.

So there we have it, two options: You believe the Bible to be the exact word of God, in which case you are, how to say this politely, provably wrong. Or you believe it has cultural influences in it and thus invalidate any authority in it or any justification of letting its writings influence your life or the lives of others. Either way, it is unjustifiable to live your life by the word of the Bible and worse to make others live their lives by it.