The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

As An Atheist Can Your Life Have Purpose and Meaning?

I was wondering what other people thought about this.

I realize we weren't born with a purpose. No creator or "higher calling".

But as a non believer can your life have meaning and purpose without god?

7 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chang on March 18, 2013 at 8:04pm

When tackling a question such as "What is the meaning to life?", it would do us well to understand what exactly we mean by purpose, for every word has multiple meanings in all its different contexts. A person may or may not be cognitive of the distinctions between the ideas referred to by this word, so any position must clarify its terms to enhance comprehensibility. There are 2 dichotomies which I will be focusing on:

Objective and subjective. An objective purpose is one that must exist independently of a being's will, and subjective purpose dependent on a being's will.
Categorical and hypothetical. As explained by Kant, a categorical imperative is one that is true of all situations, and is required end in itself. Hypothetical imperatives work for some other end. While Kant's focus was morality, I will adapt the usage of his terms to cover the purpose of life.

Next, I will briefly explain the different ways in which purpose may be used.

A) Suppose I have a calculator in which I use to solve simple math problems. It could then be said that the purpose of the calculator is to solve simple math problems. However, this is not exactly the purpose of the calculator, but my purpose for the calculator, since for someone else given the same calculator, his purpose might be to satisfy boredom by passing messages in code, or to scratch his back. These are subjective and hypothetical purposes, assigned by a capable agent and for some other end. In fact, I will pass along the idea that most if not all subjective purposes must be hypothetical, one that many will vehemently deny since it may be construed as an attack on core assumptions of their being. The idea is that most of anything we do is a result of attempts to satisfy biological or emotional impulses. Like how one uses a calculator in order to solve math problems, one also eats or drinks in order to satisfy hunger or thirst -- it must be stressed that even though hunger or thirst are necessary in order to live, these are still external ends. That is, one does not eat or drink as an act in itself, therefore these actions do not satisfy the conditions for being considered categorical. Even if someone feels strongly about living in order to take care of a loved one, that is not fundamentally different than the assigned purpose to a calculator. There is a special case that falls within this category, and that is one where a creator assigns a purpose; it is quite easy to fall into the trap with the idea that if a creator assigns a purpose, then it must exist within the definition of the thing being described. This is a mistake not only because the will of the creator is also subjective, but also because the physical creation exists independently any assigned purpose, such that: 1) It is true that the calculator consists of X, Y, and Z physical properties. 2) It is true that the calculator was invented with the purpose of solving simple math problems. 3) It is true that the purpose of the calculator according to the inventor is to solve simple math problems. 4) It is not true that the purpose of the calculator is to solve simple math problems in itself.
B) Often people make the mistake of speaking about purpose within an evolutionary framework, saying such things as that the "purpose" of life is to survive and evolve, or the "purpose" of a heart is to beat. I say it is a mistake because Evolution is a descriptive process and does not hold expectation. When people make these kinds of assertions, they tend not to be cognitive of the fact these "purposes" of which they refer are not moral or conscious purposes like what we typically refer to when we talk about "the purpose of life", or "What should I do?". No, the purpose of a heart refers to how the heart is expected to function within a system by the person making the assertion. When we say "the purpose of a wire is to conduct electricity between 2 points", what we are actually saying is that we expect that that electricity will be conducted between 2 points because of the wire, and that is the wire's role in order for the system to function. Once again, these assertions are hypothetical --they work towards some other end-- but the difference between these and (A) is that these tend to be objectively true by definition: we define ideal state of being from our expectations, and to that end these things have purposes towards our expectations.
C) Most commonly though, when people ask the question, "What is the meaning to life?" (as well as moral questions), they have in their minds a transcendental conception that would satisfy their spiritual being. They are not interested in what they should do next in order to survive or accomplish some task at hand, nor are they really interested in how they should be expected to be productive workers in some societal system. What they are interested in is this elusive purpose in itself, the categorical imperative that Kant devoted his moral philosophy to. I propose that a subjective "purpose" cannot be purpose(C), since all conscious imperatives are motivated by experience, and therefore cannot be an end onto itself.

So to answer the question: Can our lives have purpose(A/B)? Absolutely. But can our lives have purpose(C)? This is a distinction of paramount importance. One must realize the extent and confines of their conclusion, for if they have worked out a problem using some limited conception of purpose, and then adapt it to encompass and breathe life into a purpose that exists in itself, then he has just committed a semantic shift fallacy perhaps even without his knowledge. On paper it may all appear the same, but someone proclaiming to have found purpose must have some conception of what that "purpose" is, and that conception makes all the difference. Some people tend to drop their intellectual guard after some time, perhaps weary of being unable to grasp what they seek, that they start to confuse purpose(A) or purpose(B) for purpose(C). They may even be satisfied in their abilities to choose some worthy goal to live their lives for, or consciously work towards being a model citizen in some arbitrarily chosen system to follow. I risk controversy for saying what I'm about to say, but it is not wrong to do either, even whether that system be a system of God or some system of naturalism drawn from scientific principles such as Evolution as inspiration (such as a system backed by Christopher Hitchens). Neither are wrong. But I do believe in intellectual honesty -- as long as a person recognizes and accepts that his purpose is either purpose(A) or purpose(B), but not purpose(C), and be honest and forthcoming about that revelation, then I should also accept that in the face of overwhelming unknowns and absurdities it becomes necessary to adopt a "purpose", whatever it may be, or face eternal stagnation wrestling with a spectral problem that may as well be epistemically impossible to solve.